It seems to me that removing yield signs from on ramps can improve safety and efficiency.
Zipper merging is an efficient way to merge. Adopting zipper merges at most freeway on ramps would discourage inefficient and unsafe behaviors - of both stopping/slowing to a crawl at the on ramp (which now increases the gap in traffic needed to merge), and tailgating each other while passing the merge point (which is unsafe in itself and forces merging traffic to stop).
Treating yield signs as conditional stop signs is only for roads without acceleration lanes. In practice the only time freeways that have acceleration lanes should be "at capacity" is when traffic slows to the point where a safe (2+second) following distance falls below 2 cars.
In addition to safety and efficiency benefits, we also save money on signs.
Yielding would still apply even if the signs were removed, right?
Unfortunately, it is not as easy as simply removing the yield signs. In most cases, yield signs are placed at substandard ramps where they would need to build acceleration lanes to justify eliminating the yield.
Sorry - not the same thing as a lane-ending issue. Those on the highway have the right-of-way. They should *never* be slowing down to allow someone on the highway. Unfortunately, many people must skip over this lesson in Drivers Education training, because they feel that they are entitled to get onto the highway and those already on the highway must yield to them.
The idea is more to make it official policy that drivers on the main road have to cooperate with ramp traffic and let them in.
Instead of the standard for eliminating yield signs being that ramps have excellent geometry and visibility, I would suggest an alternative standard: regardless of how good the ramp is or how long the acceleration lane is... is ramp traffic expected to stop? I can think of several less than ideal interchanges that have yield signs where the effect on traffic could be catastrophic if someone stopped to give way. I've never encountered a ramp with such poor visibility and geometry that I couldn't let someone in if I wanted to.
QuoteSorry - not the same thing as a lane-ending issue. Those on the highway have the right-of-way. They should *never* be slowing down to allow someone on the highway. Unfortunately, many people must skip over this lesson in Drivers Education training, because they feel that they are entitled to get onto the highway and those already on the highway must yield to them.
You forgot some other lessons:
1) Never stop on the ramp
2) Defensive driving
3) The only difference between an ending lane and an ending acceleration lane is... very little. If you want to argue legal right of way, any time you have a sign that says "lane ends merge right/left", those on the non-ending lane have the right of way.
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 08:46:39 AM
The idea is more to make it official policy that drivers on the main road have to cooperate with ramp traffic and let them in.
Instead of the standard for eliminating yield signs being that ramps have excellent geometry and visibility, I would suggest an alternative standard: regardless of how good the ramp is or how long the acceleration lane is... is ramp traffic expected to stop? I can think of several less than ideal interchanges that have yield signs where the effect on traffic could be catastrophic if someone stopped to give way. I've never encountered a ramp with such poor visibility and geometry that I couldn't let someone in if I wanted to.
QuoteSorry - not the same thing as a lane-ending issue. Those on the highway have the right-of-way. They should *never* be slowing down to allow someone on the highway. Unfortunately, many people must skip over this lesson in Drivers Education training, because they feel that they are entitled to get onto the highway and those already on the highway must yield to them.
You forgot some other lessons:
1) Never stop on the ramp
2) Defensive driving
3) The only difference between an ending lane and an ending acceleration lane is... very little. If you want to argue legal right of way, any time you have a sign that says "lane ends merge right/left", those on the non-ending lane have the right of way.
Never stop on a ramp? Never?
At certain times and situations 'someone' may have to stop and it shouldn't be the motorist already on the freeway.
Pixel 2
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 07:24:34 AM
[Yield signs at end of freeway ramps]
Remove them? Many states (Illinois (https://goo.gl/maps/mfrdTo9MTP72), Indiana (https://goo.gl/maps/GcPagE4SAR22), Michigan (https://goo.gl/maps/8ZL5eTjj8mA2), Wisconsin (https://goo.gl/maps/C8MKL5ndZAU2)) don't even post them anyway for most ramps. I've only seen them used on every ramp in a minority of states, like Iowa (https://goo.gl/maps/Er3VZVxba4J2).
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 08:46:39 AM
QuoteSorry - not the same thing as a lane-ending issue. Those on the highway have the right-of-way. They should *never* be slowing down to allow someone on the highway. Unfortunately, many people must skip over this lesson in Drivers Education training, because they feel that they are entitled to get onto the highway and those already on the highway must yield to them.
You forgot some other lessons:
1) Never stop on the ramp
2) Defensive driving
3) The only difference between an ending lane and an ending acceleration lane is... very little. If you want to argue legal right of way, any time you have a sign that says "lane ends merge right/left", those on the non-ending lane have the right of way.
Merging requires one to get up to freeway speed on a ramp, but that also means you do the following:
1. Match your speed to those on the freeway so as not to inhibit their travel (i.e. do not enter at 35 mph in front of them).
2. Yield to those already on the freeway as they have right-of-way (i.e. do not cut them off).
Thus, you can seamlessly merge into traffic.
Wisconsin tells drivers on the freeway to pull over to the next lane when there is a merge. Page 42 of https://wisconsindot.gov/Documents/dmv/shared/bds124-driverbook.pdf
Quote from: billpa on April 03, 2019, 10:03:23 AM
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 08:46:39 AM
The idea is more to make it official policy that drivers on the main road have to cooperate with ramp traffic and let them in.
Instead of the standard for eliminating yield signs being that ramps have excellent geometry and visibility, I would suggest an alternative standard: regardless of how good the ramp is or how long the acceleration lane is... is ramp traffic expected to stop? I can think of several less than ideal interchanges that have yield signs where the effect on traffic could be catastrophic if someone stopped to give way. I've never encountered a ramp with such poor visibility and geometry that I couldn't let someone in if I wanted to.
QuoteSorry - not the same thing as a lane-ending issue. Those on the highway have the right-of-way. They should *never* be slowing down to allow someone on the highway. Unfortunately, many people must skip over this lesson in Drivers Education training, because they feel that they are entitled to get onto the highway and those already on the highway must yield to them.
You forgot some other lessons:
1) Never stop on the ramp
2) Defensive driving
3) The only difference between an ending lane and an ending acceleration lane is... very little. If you want to argue legal right of way, any time you have a sign that says "lane ends merge right/left", those on the non-ending lane have the right of way.
Never stop on a ramp? Never?
At certain times and situations 'someone' may have to stop and it shouldn't be the motorist already on the freeway.
Pixel 2
As long as traffic is moving normally, nobody should have to stop.
Quote from: Brandon on April 03, 2019, 10:11:35 AM
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 08:46:39 AM
QuoteSorry - not the same thing as a lane-ending issue. Those on the highway have the right-of-way. They should *never* be slowing down to allow someone on the highway. Unfortunately, many people must skip over this lesson in Drivers Education training, because they feel that they are entitled to get onto the highway and those already on the highway must yield to them.
You forgot some other lessons:
1) Never stop on the ramp
2) Defensive driving
3) The only difference between an ending lane and an ending acceleration lane is... very little. If you want to argue legal right of way, any time you have a sign that says "lane ends merge right/left", those on the non-ending lane have the right of way.
Merging requires one to get up to freeway speed on a ramp, but that also means you do the following:
1. Match your speed to those on the freeway so as not to inhibit their travel (i.e. do not enter at 35 mph in front of them).
2. Yield to those already on the freeway as they have right-of-way (i.e. do not cut them off).
Thus, you can seamlessly merge into traffic.
Our laws are currently set up to minimize inhibiting those on the freeway in theory.
Speeders, tailgaters, short acceleration areas and slow vehicles/drivers all mean that theory doesn't work so well in practice. It is easier and safer for the car on the freeway to "inhibit" himself slightly than to put all the responsibility on the entering car. Net efficiency is also greater than if the entering vehicle had to come to a stop.
The merits of zipper merging apply regardless of the initial distance/separation between the two merging lanes.
PA has several substandard ramps where they will actually place a STOP sign on the ramp instead of a yield sign.
On the Schuylkill Expwy (I-76), there are long-range (medium range) plans to assign variable lane control...and it was stated on the webpage for that where a mainline right lane may be closed off to allow the on-ramp to effectively not merge. The place where I see this working pretty well is the merge from US 202/US 422 into I-76 east...where many times, there is a larger volume coming from US 202/US 422...closing the right lane of I-76 before that may effectively work.
But to make that a blanket statement for all ramps? Urban and rural? High traffic or low traffic?
Quote from: jemacedo9 on April 03, 2019, 11:49:44 AM
PA has several substandard ramps where they will actually place a STOP sign on the ramp instead of a yield sign.
On the Schuylkill Expwy (I-76), there are long-range (medium range) plans to assign variable lane control...and it was stated on the webpage for that where a mainline right lane may be closed off to allow the on-ramp to effectively not merge. The place where I see this working pretty well is the merge from US 202/US 422 into I-76 east...where many times, there is a larger volume coming from US 202/US 422...closing the right lane of I-76 before that may effectively work.
But to make that a blanket statement for all ramps? Urban and rural? High traffic or low traffic?
Any ramp where you don't want traffic to stop on the ramp, which is most ramps.
Quote from: webny99 on April 03, 2019, 08:08:37 AM
Unfortunately, it is not as easy as simply removing the yield signs. In most cases, yield signs are placed at substandard ramps where they would need to build acceleration lanes to justify eliminating the yield.
Per the MUTCD, the lack of adequate acceleration lanes is the only reason why Yield signs should be placed on entrance ramps to freeways. Unfortunately, there are DOTs who feel it is necessary to provide Yield signs on ALL entrance ramps in either specific Districts or statewide.
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 10:42:15 AM
Our laws are currently set up to minimize inhibiting those on the freeway in theory.
Speeders, tailgaters, short acceleration areas and slow vehicles/drivers all mean that theory doesn't work so well in practice. It is easier and safer for the car on the freeway to "inhibit" himself slightly than to put all the responsibility on the entering car. Net efficiency is also greater than if the entering vehicle had to come to a stop.
The merits of zipper merging apply regardless of the initial distance/separation between the two merging lanes.
Biggest problem for the merge in heavy traffic is space available for merge - and those who insist on keeping right no matter what. Full speed zipper may be a good idea, but it assumes that the right lane is half empty, with 4+ seconds intervals between vehicles.
I know some people who are absolutely adamant that the traffic already on either the highway or the C/D road should slow down to allow people coming down the ramp to have a clear shot to accelerate up to highway speed, regardless of who has the yield sign or anything else. I suppose I understand their thinking, although I definitely disagree with it if there's no C/D road and I think it's unnecessary if there is one (because the C/D road is where you accelerate up to speed).
I do think if it's possible and reasonable to do so safely, traffic in the lane adjacent to the onramp should move over a lane to let people merge onto the highway.
Quote from: billpa on April 03, 2019, 10:03:23 AM
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 08:46:39 AM
The idea is more to make it official policy that drivers on the main road have to cooperate with ramp traffic and let them in.
Instead of the standard for eliminating yield signs being that ramps have excellent geometry and visibility, I would suggest an alternative standard: regardless of how good the ramp is or how long the acceleration lane is... is ramp traffic expected to stop? I can think of several less than ideal interchanges that have yield signs where the effect on traffic could be catastrophic if someone stopped to give way. I've never encountered a ramp with such poor visibility and geometry that I couldn't let someone in if I wanted to.
QuoteSorry - not the same thing as a lane-ending issue. Those on the highway have the right-of-way. They should *never* be slowing down to allow someone on the highway. Unfortunately, many people must skip over this lesson in Drivers Education training, because they feel that they are entitled to get onto the highway and those already on the highway must yield to them.
You forgot some other lessons:
1) Never stop on the ramp
2) Defensive driving
3) The only difference between an ending lane and an ending acceleration lane is... very little. If you want to argue legal right of way, any time you have a sign that says "lane ends merge right/left", those on the non-ending lane have the right of way.
Never stop on a ramp? Never?
At certain times and situations 'someone' may have to stop and it shouldn't be the motorist already on the freeway.
Pixel 2
This is the thought process I can't stand. People think they can just bully their way onto the highway from the ramp. In a perfect world, ramp traffic should be up to highway speed by the time they merge in. Many cases there are substandard ramps with no merge time. At those cases, what if youre going down the ramp and hit the end and there is a car in the mainline?! What would you do?! Slam on the breaks to avoid hitting them? Hit them? Run off the road? Or yield to them like you're supposed to do? That's why there's YIELD and STOP signs at those type of ramps.
I've been in the mainline and almost hit several times by people who bully their way on from these substandard ramps. They have to yield to me.
An example...there should actually be a stop sign here to stop people like that when they just move right in.
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.331028,-73.0904076,3a,75y,351.06h,64.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sCGAzzZybMRqDuDvoApEZGw!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Quote from: Brandon on April 03, 2019, 10:08:31 AM
Remove them? Many states (Illinois (https://goo.gl/maps/mfrdTo9MTP72), Indiana (https://goo.gl/maps/GcPagE4SAR22), Michigan (https://goo.gl/maps/8ZL5eTjj8mA2), Wisconsin (https://goo.gl/maps/C8MKL5ndZAU2)) don't even post them anyway for most ramps.
This.
There are bazillions of on-ramps with no yield sign that function perfectly well. I think they're mostly pointless. If someone is going to slow down or move over to let someone in, then they're going to do so whether there's a yield sign on the ramp or not. If someone is
not going to slow down or move over, then they're likewise going to
not do so whether there's a yield sign on the ramp or not.
Quote from: kphoger on April 03, 2019, 02:41:30 PM
Quote from: Brandon on April 03, 2019, 10:08:31 AM
Remove them? Many states (Illinois (https://goo.gl/maps/mfrdTo9MTP72), Indiana (https://goo.gl/maps/GcPagE4SAR22), Michigan (https://goo.gl/maps/8ZL5eTjj8mA2), Wisconsin (https://goo.gl/maps/C8MKL5ndZAU2)) don't even post them anyway for most ramps.
This.
There are bazillions of on-ramps with no yield sign that function perfectly well. I think they're mostly pointless. If someone is going to slow down or move over to let someone in, then they're going to do so whether there's a yield sign on the ramp or not. If someone is not going to slow down or move over, then they're likewise going to not do so whether there's a yield sign on the ramp or not.
Currently, on-ramp traffic (especially in situations with poor visibility) face a dilemma:
If you choose to treat the yield sign as a conditional stop sign, crawl along the ramp and only speed up at the end of the ramp when you have full view of the main road and made sure there is a gap, you will be starting from a lower speed and as a result need to wait for a much larger gap in traffic to merge. This is inefficient and starts a chain reaction where every car behind you now also needs a large gap to merge.
If you start accelerating early, you will arrive at the merge point with a small speed differential and only need a small gap to merge with traffic. But, since you do not have right of way, traffic on the mainline can choose to not let you in or close a previously available gap, at which point you will have to slow down to a crawl. Once you slow down you've likely already used up most of your acceleration area, and now require a much larger opening that you must accelerate again to enter.
With the zipper merge method, all ramp traffic has to worry about is getting up to speed and not passing any car on the mainline. The only sacrifice required of cars on the mainline is some light braking. Spreading out the workload is better for safety than putting all the workload on one car.
If both lanes are legally considered to have equal right of way, it would definitely make a difference and discourage the unsafe behavior of passing at the merge area. Ramp traffic would also more confidently accelerate if they know the law is on their side.
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 05:06:14 PM
If both lanes are legally considered to have equal right of way, it would definitely make a difference and discourage the unsafe behavior of passing at the merge area. Ramp traffic would also more confidently accelerate if they know the law is on their side.
Removing the yield sign won't do that, though. Traffic on the freeway still has right of way.
If that is true, then what is even the point of yield signs? :confused:
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 05:41:34 PM
If that is true, then what is even the point of yield signs? :confused:
1. As a reminder.
2. If it's not clear which direction has the right of way.
3. To determine priority at roundabouts and sometimes rotaries and traffic circles.
4. (mostly used outside the US) In place of a 2-way stop to determine who has the right of way without requiring stopping.
Quote from: 1 on April 03, 2019, 06:50:43 PM
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 05:41:34 PM
If that is true, then what is even the point of yield signs? :confused:
1. As a reminder.
2. If it's not clear which direction has the right of way.
3. To determine priority at roundabouts and sometimes rotaries and traffic circles.
4. (mostly used outside the US) In place of a 2-way stop to determine who has the right of way without requiring stopping.
I think he meant specifically at the end of freeway ramps, not in general, so only #1 would apply.
If I were king of the world yield signs would never be used in an add-lane situation (be it a short acceleration or weaving segment-like the cloverleaf below)
(https://seeclickfix.com/files/issue_images/0008/2667/i240clover_confusion.jpg)
IMO this may be leading to some of the confusion of "failure to yield" at roundabouts. The same sign is used to say "merge at 70 mph" so no wonder people don't prepare for a stop at the approach.
Sadly I am not king of the world
Here is a prime example of where you're likely to need to stop (and then merge with the fast lane of traffic!)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9482358,-75.1863577,3a,75y,43.65h,76.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgiPQs7FP8kcCwY3ycYUPnA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Honestly, I seldom see any onramps where merging traffic reaches the speed of highway traffic before merging. Usually it's pretty much impossible. The one exception in my regular travels is the merge from Garden State Parkway North to Atlantic City Expressway West with the long acceleration lane. Usually, I move leftward to avoid merging traffic from the right. If that's impossible, then slow down. What's the alternative? Hitting merging cars?
Quote from: bzakharin on April 04, 2019, 04:49:06 PM
Here is a prime example of where you're likely to need to stop (and then merge with the fast lane of traffic!)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9482358,-75.1863577,3a,75y,43.65h,76.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgiPQs7FP8kcCwY3ycYUPnA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Honestly, I seldom see any onramps where merging traffic reaches the speed of highway traffic before merging. Usually it's pretty much impossible. The one exception in my regular travels is the merge from Garden State Parkway North to Atlantic City Expressway West with the long acceleration lane. Usually, I move leftward to avoid merging traffic from the right. If that's impossible, then slow down. What's the alternative? Hitting merging cars?
And Chicago's answers with no yield signs:
Added lane (https://goo.gl/maps/UEQ6YLZC6hs)
Merging lane (https://goo.gl/maps/wM5GeLgWoWM2) (with ramp meters that weren't there back when I live there)
Zipper merging is only important when there's heavy traffic, but when there's heavy traffic, I would expect traffic in the outer lane to "zipper" with the merging traffic.
If this is a continual issue, ramp meters might be a consideration.
British Columbia, instead of a yield sign, typically uses a black-on-yellow "MERGE" sign:
(https://i.imgur.com/l56Ogf0.png)
Quote from: bzakharin on April 04, 2019, 04:49:06 PM
Here is a prime example of where you're likely to need to stop (and then merge with the fast lane of traffic!)
https://www.google.com/maps/@39.9482358,-75.1863577,3a,75y,43.65h,76.04t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sgiPQs7FP8kcCwY3ycYUPnA!2e0!7i16384!8i8192
Honestly, I seldom see any onramps where merging traffic reaches the speed of highway traffic before merging. Usually it's pretty much impossible.
I'm pretty sure most cars could exceed the speed limit by the end of whatever acceleration area is available if you floor it. (in the case of I-76 you linked, 50mph). I realize the "speed of highway traffic" is more than the speed limit, especially in the passing lane, which makes it double important to change the laws so drivers choosing to speed past a ramp don't have absolute right of way and are held accountable if there is a completely preventable collision.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2019, 05:17:10 PM
Zipper merging is only important when there's heavy traffic, but when there's heavy traffic, I would expect traffic in the outer lane to "zipper" with the merging traffic.
I do often see people zipper merge but occasionally someone doesn't. It would be better to change the laws so there is a legal obligation to play ball.
Quote from: yand on April 04, 2019, 05:52:48 PM
Quote from: jakeroot on April 04, 2019, 05:17:10 PM
Zipper merging is only important when there's heavy traffic, but when there's heavy traffic, I would expect traffic in the outer lane to "zipper" with the merging traffic.
I do often see people zipper merge but occasionally someone doesn't. It would be better to change the laws so there is a legal obligation to play ball.
I think the only reason that hasn't happened has been due to a potential for lawsuits, stemming from drivers who crash at the merge point blaming the other driver for the crash. Since priority is equal, both drivers would be responsible. But since everyone is absolutely certain that
they didn't cause the crash, they'll end up taking the state to court over something.
The South Australia law makes sense to me. There are two merge laws: (1) lane ending (denoted by dashed lines across the end of the lane); give way to the other lane, or (2) a zipper merge (no lane lines); drivers in front of you have priority, even if they're in another lane. So if your bumper is ahead of the car to your right or left, you have priority.
https://youtu.be/9lZkaHWAJWs
Quote from: yand on April 03, 2019, 08:46:39 AM
The idea is more to make it official policy that drivers on the main road have to cooperate with ramp traffic and let them in.
Instead of the standard for eliminating yield signs being that ramps have excellent geometry and visibility, I would suggest an alternative standard: regardless of how good the ramp is or how long the acceleration lane is... is ramp traffic expected to stop? I can think of several less than ideal interchanges that have yield signs where the effect on traffic could be catastrophic if someone stopped to give way. I've never encountered a ramp with such poor visibility and geometry that I couldn't let someone in if I wanted to.
QuoteSorry - not the same thing as a lane-ending issue. Those on the highway have the right-of-way. They should *never* be slowing down to allow someone on the highway. Unfortunately, many people must skip over this lesson in Drivers Education training, because they feel that they are entitled to get onto the highway and those already on the highway must yield to them.
You forgot some other lessons:
1) Never stop on the ramp
2) Defensive driving
3) The only difference between an ending lane and an ending acceleration lane is... very little. If you want to argue legal right of way, any time you have a sign that says "lane ends merge right/left", those on the non-ending lane have the right of way.
You're doing it wrong. Traffic that slows on the highway causes congestion at interchanges. Yes, you should speed up in the acceleration lane, but you need to merge in after you've sped up. If you're forcing people to get out of your way, you're causing the problem.
Yield signs don't belong on freeways at all, period. It goes against what on-ramps are for. They are for accelerating up to freeway speed. If you are accelerating and reach 65 MPH, then you see a yield sign, that implies you may need to stop. You're not going to slam on your brakes there, that would be stupid. The only time you should stop when merging onto a freeway is if traffic on the freeway is stop-and-go (or there's some other legitimate hazard like a disabled vehicle). If you actually stop at the end of an on-ramp, you'll never be able to accelerate quick enough to get on the freeway at proper speed.
In Idaho, even the shittiest of freeway on-ramps don't use any kind of yield signs. We manage just fine. You basically get up to freeway speed, and then if there's other cars, just wedge in between 2 of them (essentially like a zipper merge, even though freeway traffic has the right of way in this case). Gets the job done even in thick traffic, as long as you make an attempt to get in between. It's the only realistic option (slamming on the brakes or driving on the shoulder are much more likely to cause an accident). Often will involve the person on the ramp slowing down a few MPH to line up better. The person on the mainline doesn't need to do anything, though moving over if possible is ideal, and trying to match speed can smooth things out (though is not expected).
(https://i.imgur.com/a7XAfPT.png)
GSV Link (https://www.google.com/maps/@43.9686185,-116.9110553,3a,75y,132.4h,65.01t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1s_wuFbofRRTkvL9_syCeVuA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656)
For reference, this is merging onto 80 MPH I-84. And the ramp is coming from US-95, so it's a pretty well used ramp (by rural standards). We have crappy ramps like this in urban areas too.
Quote from: doorknob60 on April 05, 2019, 03:01:50 PM
In Idaho, even the shittiest of freeway on-ramps don't use any kind of yield signs. We manage just fine. You basically get up to freeway speed, and then if there's other cars, just wedge in between 2 of them (essentially like a zipper merge, even though freeway traffic has the right of way in this case). Gets the job done even in thick traffic, as long as you make an attempt to get in between. It's the only realistic option (slamming on the brakes or driving on the shoulder are much more likely to cause an accident). Often will involve the person on the ramp slowing down a few MPH to line up better. The person on the mainline doesn't need to do anything, though moving over if possible is ideal, and trying to match speed can smooth things out (though is not expected).
Not sure I agree. Here in WA, we merge exactly the same way (everyone makes a gap, even if one of the lanes has priority), but we will drive on the shoulder in lieu of stopping if there's a failed merge attempt. Much safer than stopping.
Quote from: jakeroot on April 05, 2019, 03:30:09 PM
Quote from: doorknob60 on April 05, 2019, 03:01:50 PM
In Idaho, even the shittiest of freeway on-ramps don't use any kind of yield signs. We manage just fine. You basically get up to freeway speed, and then if there's other cars, just wedge in between 2 of them (essentially like a zipper merge, even though freeway traffic has the right of way in this case). Gets the job done even in thick traffic, as long as you make an attempt to get in between. It's the only realistic option (slamming on the brakes or driving on the shoulder are much more likely to cause an accident). Often will involve the person on the ramp slowing down a few MPH to line up better. The person on the mainline doesn't need to do anything, though moving over if possible is ideal, and trying to match speed can smooth things out (though is not expected).
Not sure I agree. Here in WA, we merge exactly the same way (everyone makes a gap, even if one of the lanes has priority), but we will drive on the shoulder in lieu of stopping if there's a failed merge attempt. Much safer than stopping.
Assuming there is enough of a shoulder to begin with.
Sometimes there is no perfect solution - only some more-or-less workable ones.
If every freeway entrance had acceleration lanes (as should be the case), this thread would not need to exist.
Quote from: webny99 on April 05, 2019, 05:26:40 PM
If every freeway entrance had acceleration lanes (as should be the case), this thread would not need to exist.
I can add a couple of other if's. Most obvious one: closely spaced ramps (e.g. my beloved spot at beginning of Northway, with a total of 9 ramps: 5 on + 4 off - over about 2 miles)
Quote from: webny99 on April 05, 2019, 05:26:40 PM
If every freeway entrance had acceleration lanes (as should be the case), this thread would not need to exist.
Tell that to a state like Iowa which uses them on almost every ramp, even with acceleration lanes.
Quote from: yand on April 06, 2019, 09:33:30 AM
I move over as soon as I can, even if I'm going 40mph. Staying in the acceleration lane until I reach the speed limit runs the risk of 1) a speeder on the freeway catching up and blocking the merge, or 2) a faster car behind me darting onto the freeway then passing me, blocking the merge.
At what point I merge out of the acceleration lane and how quickly I accelerate along the way vary based on traffic conditions.
If there's a car crowding by butt, then I merge a little earlier than usual, just to make sure he doesn't block my merge by going around but not quite fast enough (as you described in (2)). However, it's rare that someone is exhibiting that jackass-ish of behavior–and most who do tend take dart out into the second or third lane immediately, leaving my merge path clear anyway.
If traffic is heavy on the highway, then I use as much of the acceleration as practicable and I get as close to the speed limit as practicable before merging. I want to give traffic already on the highway as much time and space as possible to maneuver before adding myself into the mix. I'd much rather use the full length of the acceleration lane at 10 under the limit, letting two truckers pass by me side-by-side, than dart immediately in front of one of them at 20 under the limit. To me, that's just common sense and common courtesy.
In general, I find that a good rule of thumb is to aim for 5 mph under the speed limit at my normal merge point. That way, if I need to slow down to find a gap, I'm likely already at or below the prevailing speed of traffic, so it's not hard to do. On the other hand, if traffic is flowing fine and there are gaps readily available, then it's easy to speed up to the prevailing speed of traffic and, if someone needs to slow down to let me in, it's only a tap of their brakes and nothing more.
As for (1) in your post... If one car, no matter what speed it's going, manages to "block the merge" for you–then you don't know how to merge. By the time you get to that point, you should already have gauged by looking in your mirrors how fast that other car is driving. At that point, it's a simple matter of either slowing down to merge behind him or speeding up to merge in front of him. Merging in front of him at a much slower speed than his is just plain bad driving.
I play cities Skylines, I honestly would like without yielding but you'd have to do it in a familiar way. The way I do is put the road to 4 lanes from 3, then have people switch out.
iPhone
It looks like this: (https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20190406/2af5aaf96a5f93c6c3cd7db9329dc678.jpg)
iPhone
Quote from: yand on April 06, 2019, 09:33:30 AM
I move over as soon as I can, even if I'm going 40mph. Staying in the acceleration lane until I reach the speed limit runs the risk of 1) a speeder on the freeway catching up and blocking the merge, or 2) a faster car behind me darting onto the freeway then passing me, blocking the merge.
For anyone that knows how to drive, neither of those are legitimate risks. Being "blocked" is a myth. Full stop.
If a single car can block you from merging, that is your fault, not theirs. The acceleration lane exists to allow you to get up to speed, but also so that you have options: in front of or behind other traffic. Your choice, but do it in a non-obstructive way.
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2019, 10:21:45 AM
If traffic is heavy on the highway, then I use as much of the acceleration as practicable and I get as close to the speed limit as practicable before merging.
I take the first usable gap. Higher speed differential requires larger gaps, lower speed differential requires smaller gaps. Chewing up all of your lane and merging at the last possible moment is just not a smart move.
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2019, 10:21:45 AM
In general, I find that a good rule of thumb is to aim for 5 mph under the speed limit at my normal merge point.
I find a good rule of thumb is to carry as much energy into the merge point as I can, most cars are better at slowing down than speeding up
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 11:16:17 AM
For anyone that knows how to drive, neither of those are legitimate risks. Being "blocked" is a myth. Full stop.
Wrong. A vehicle unable to merge at this moment because another vehicle is passing, is being blocked. If someone decides they have to stop at the yield sign and wait for traffic to pass, they are being blocked.
Your statement is outlandish, like claiming that crashing is not a legitimate risk, or that crashing is a myth "for anyone that knows how to drive". They are all legitimate risks that are avoided by knowing how to drive, such as by taking advantage of the earliest opening and not waiting to the last second to merge.
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2019, 10:21:45 AM
If one car, no matter what speed it's going, manages to "block the merge" for you–then you don't know how to merge. By the time you get to that point, you should already have gauged by looking in your mirrors how fast that other car is driving.
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 11:16:17 AM
If a single car can block you from merging, that is your fault, not theirs. The acceleration lane exists to allow you to get up to speed, but also so that you have options: in front of or behind other traffic.
My bad I worded it in a way that y'all took literally to mean a single car. Indeed, letting a single car pass and merging behind it is quite easy. A large pack of n cars, combined with an acceleration area just long enough to get slightly above the speed limit, makes merging behind simply not possible without dramatically slowing down and waiting for the pack to pass.
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 11:16:17 AM
Your choice, but do it in a non-obstructive way.
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2019, 10:21:45 AM
than dart immediately in front of one of them at 20 under the limit.
[...]
At that point, it's a simple matter of either slowing down to merge behind him or speeding up to merge in front of him. Merging in front of him at a much slower speed than his is just plain bad driving.
It is actually perfectly acceptable to merge in front of someone at a much slower speed provided there was enough of a gap at the time of the merge. You are making baseless assumptions about how much distance I will accept before entering the freeway at a low speed.
Quote from: yand on April 06, 2019, 11:52:49 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 11:16:17 AM
For anyone that knows how to drive, neither of those are legitimate risks. Being "blocked" is a myth. Full stop.
Wrong. A vehicle unable to merge at this moment because another vehicle is passing, is being blocked. If someone decides they have to stop at the yield sign and wait for traffic to pass, they are being blocked.
Only if there is absolutely no acceleration lane, and therefore only one "moment" in which to merge. On a normal on-ramp, there is no such thing as legitimately being blocked -- just keep your options open and merge when there's space. People aren't really going to attempt to shut you out -- they understand you are just entering the roadway.
If someone decides to stop for passing traffic at the end of an on ramp, it doesnt mean they're actually blocked out -- how do we know if they haven't reached the end of the lane? They just made a bad decision, and that's nobody's fault but their own.
Quote from: yand on April 06, 2019, 11:52:49 AM
Your statement is outlandish, like claiming that crashing is not a legitimate risk, or that crashing is a myth "for anyone that knows how to drive". They are all legitimate risks that are avoided by knowing how to drive, such as by taking advantage of the earliest opening and not waiting to the last second to merge.
Crashing is a risk, yes. But "being blocked" no more of a risk than hitting someone while backing out of your driveway. The chances of something adverse happening do not increase when you are aware of your surroundings, simply let someone by and get in line behind them.
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 05:06:48 PM
Quote from: yand on April 06, 2019, 11:52:49 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 11:16:17 AM
For anyone that knows how to drive, neither of those are legitimate risks. Being "blocked" is a myth. Full stop.
Wrong. A vehicle unable to merge at this moment because another vehicle is passing, is being blocked. If someone decides they have to stop at the yield sign and wait for traffic to pass, they are being blocked.
Only if there is absolutely no acceleration lane, and therefore only one "moment" in which to merge.
Just because you happen to be able to merge somewhere down the line does not mean you aren't being blocked at this moment. If a car is passing you from the left, your access to the left lane is blocked for the duration of the pass. If there is a second car tailgating the first car, you will have to let both cars pass. If enough cars do this (unlikely but absolutely possible), you will miss your window as acceleration lanes are in fact not infinite.
Quite interesting that moving out of an ending lane at the earliest opportunity (by definition meaning there is enough room to make a safe lane change given the conditions) is this controversial.
edit: A better way of putting it is, acceleration lanes exist so you can get up to speed and be able to merge into smaller gaps in traffic. There is no reason to stay on the acceleration lane if there's already a wide enough gap to merge now.
I strive to merge into a gap where traffic behind me won't be impacted; I look at traffic both forward and behind when merging, even before getting to the acceleration lane if possible, in order to accomplish this.
It boils down to how much choice of merge point driver actually has.
One of longer ramps around here is 2000' from cross-street to lane drop, I don't remember many longer ones. That is 0.4 miles; 0.4 min=24 seconds @60 MPH, or 48 seconds @30 MPH, a 24 second difference. That is probably an upper estimate of time driver can vary.
with dense traffic at 2-second intervals, that is a choice of 12 gaps at most, probably 8-10 is more realistic, even less if there are any trucks in the lane.
I have certainly seen more than 12 cars in bumper-to-bumper flow at a time. In that case, merging without the cooperation of traffic in through lane is impossible. Common courtesy may help..
I'm speaking of free-flow conditions. Yes, if it's congested drivers on both the through and acceleration lanes need to work together, but often that congestion is caused by traffic from the ramp trying to butt in at 40 mph in the first place. It happens every day at exit 4; everything is moving great, then some genius decides to cut over at 40 mph from the northbound on ramp at the earliest opportunity, utilizing none of the amply-sized acceleration lane, and next thing you know, it's stop and go.
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 05:06:48 PM
.... People aren't really going to attempt to shut you out–they understand you are just entering the roadway.
....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 07, 2019, 08:40:56 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 05:06:48 PM
.... People aren't really going to attempt to shut you out–they understand you are just entering the roadway.
....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I agree with 1995hoo here. Give driving downstate in your home state of NY a try sometime, head down to Jersey, or Boston, or DC, Chicagoland etc. If you truly believe there aren't douche bag and aggressive drivers out there who will indeed block you from merging, you just haven't seen or experienced enough yet. I'd be lying if I said I've never had to run the shoulder and bull my way in or slow down in the accel lane and try to find a more courteous driver that will allow me to merge.
I too am having a hard time adjusting to driving in the DC area. Far more aggressive than what I'm used to in Seattle.
When changing lanes, I look for someone on their phone (aka letting their guard down), and drift right in front of them. Sometimes they honk, but I know they wouldn't let me in if I signaled. So to me, it's all the same. When merging, I just start coming in. Or if necessary, drive on the shoulder until I can locate a gap (usually formed by someone who thinks they don't have to worry about merging traffic anymore).
I usually drive with my window down if possible, so I can use hand gestures. I find people are more willing to not trade paint if they can see my hand inquiring about a lane change. Blinkers don't mean anything, from what I can tell.
Quote from: signalman on April 07, 2019, 09:01:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 07, 2019, 08:40:56 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 05:06:48 PM
.... People aren't really going to attempt to shut you out–they understand you are just entering the roadway.
....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I agree with 1995hoo here. Give driving downstate in your home state of NY a try sometime, head down to Jersey, or Boston, or DC, Chicagoland etc. If you truly believe there aren't douche bag and aggressive drivers out there who will indeed block you from merging, you just haven't seen or experienced enough yet. I'd be lying if I said I've never had to run the shoulder and bull my way in or slow down in the accel lane and try to find a more courteous driver that will allow me to merge.
How do you know you agree, he never stated anything :D
Let me be clear at the outset:
Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2019, 11:23:29 PM
I'm speaking of free-flow conditions.
Indeed, my comment was made exclusively in that context. I thought that was obvious, and I would have clarified had I known it wasn't.
I am familiar with much of the East Coast; I have seen all sorts of crazy stuff happen in bad traffic.
Point stands: when traffic already on the freeway is moving at-speed or better, there is no such thing as being blocked. If you feel you are being blocked in under these circumstances, it is because of a bad decision you made earlier. Either you were too aggressive or you were too slow, depends on the situation, but 100% avoidable either way.
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 04:53:02 PM
Quote from: signalman on April 07, 2019, 09:01:41 AM
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 07, 2019, 08:40:56 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 05:06:48 PM
.... People aren't really going to attempt to shut you out–they understand you are just entering the roadway.
....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
I agree with 1995hoo here. Give driving downstate in your home state of NY a try sometime, head down to Jersey, or Boston, or DC, Chicagoland etc. If you truly believe there aren't douche bag and aggressive drivers out there who will indeed block you from merging, you just haven't seen or experienced enough yet. I'd be lying if I said I've never had to run the shoulder and bull my way in or slow down in the accel lane and try to find a more courteous driver that will allow me to merge.
How do you know you agree, he never stated anything :D
Let me be clear at the outset:
Quote from: vdeane on April 06, 2019, 11:23:29 PM
I'm speaking of free-flow conditions.
Indeed, my comment was made exclusively in that context. I thought that was obvious, and I would have clarified had I known it wasn't.
I am familiar with much of the East Coast; I have seen all sorts of crazy stuff happen in bad traffic.
Point stands: when traffic already on the freeway is moving at-speed or better, there is no such thing as being blocked. If you feel you are being blocked in under these circumstances, it is because of a bad decision you made earlier. Either you were too aggressive or you were too slow, depends on the situation, but 100% avoidable either way.
Actually, whether a merge is blocked or not does not depend on the speed of traffic at all - only on whether a sufficient gap is available. Tailgating can occur at any speed - "free flowing" or otherwise. If a sufficient gap is not available then the merge cannot occur. It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.
I definitely think that the most aggressive areas being the same as many of the most congested ones is related. The aggression is how they deal with the congestion.
Quote from: yand on April 07, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
Actually, whether a merge is blocked or not does not depend on the speed of traffic at all - only on whether a sufficient gap is available. Tailgating can occur at any speed - "free flowing" or otherwise. If a sufficient gap is not available then the merge cannot occur. It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.
But is
everybody tailgating? In my experience, no. You're supposed to survey the scene, model the behavior of every single car in your head, and adjust your speed to slip into a gap that is available.
Quote from: Brandon on April 03, 2019, 10:08:31 AM
Remove them? Many states (Illinois (https://goo.gl/maps/mfrdTo9MTP72), Indiana (https://goo.gl/maps/GcPagE4SAR22), Michigan (https://goo.gl/maps/8ZL5eTjj8mA2), Wisconsin (https://goo.gl/maps/C8MKL5ndZAU2)) don't even post them anyway for most ramps.
The Collinsville District must not have gotten that memo.
Example 1 in East St. Louis (https://goo.gl/maps/DKUHdCi2rxs)
Example 2 in East St. Louis (https://goo.gl/maps/Dx5iLCmMQpB2)
EDIT: Would the freeway sections of Palatine Road count also? WB entrance west of Wolf Road. (https://goo.gl/maps/1MM8JvXX2w22)
EDIT 2: Or how about the ramp from NB Mannheim to EB I-190? (https://goo.gl/maps/MNBHnvyczKv)
Quote from: yand on April 07, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
Actually, whether a merge is blocked or not does not depend on the speed of traffic at all - only on whether a sufficient gap is available. Tailgating can occur at any speed - "free flowing" or otherwise. If a sufficient gap is not available then the merge cannot occur.
The merge cannot occur at one point, so it occurs at another, with a little bit of acceleration or deceleration as needed. This is really a very simple concept, and I'm not sure what part of it you don't understand.
Quote from: yand on April 07, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.
I'm saying there isn't any blame to dish out because merges don't just "fail". If they can't happen at one point, they happen at another. Maybe you could explain what you believe a failed merge looks like.
I think you will find that (aside from having a crash, in which case the failed merge is the least of your worries), there is no such thing.
Quote from: vdeane on April 07, 2019, 09:14:51 PM
I definitely think that the most aggressive areas being the same as many of the most congested ones is related. The aggression is how they deal with the congestion.
Quote from: yand on April 07, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
Actually, whether a merge is blocked or not does not depend on the speed of traffic at all - only on whether a sufficient gap is available. Tailgating can occur at any speed - "free flowing" or otherwise. If a sufficient gap is not available then the merge cannot occur. It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.
But is everybody tailgating? In my experience, no. You're supposed to survey the scene, model the behavior of every single car in your head, and adjust your speed to slip into a gap that is available.
Your experience does not encompass the entire totality of possibilities. millions of merges occur every day. Anything that is possible has, can, and will happen
For the purpose of this discussion, tailgating is any distance too small to allow your vehicle (bike, smart car, van, bus, semi with multiple trailers) to accelerate up to the speed of traffic (speed limit +30 in 55 zones), and merge. It doesn't take many tailgating cars to affect the merge.
Not all ramps have good visibility. There might be a rock in the way and you can't see traffic to the side until you are in the acceleration area.
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
The merge cannot occur at one point
Because it is blocked.
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
so it occurs at another
Unless it is blocked at that point as well.
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: yand on April 07, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.
I'm saying there isn't any blame to dish out because merges don't just "fail".
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 04:53:02 PM
If you feel you are being blocked in under these circumstances, it is because of a bad decision you made earlier. Either you were too aggressive or you were too slow, depends on the situation, but 100% avoidable either way.
Sounds like blame to me
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 04:53:02 PM
If they can't happen at one point, they happen at another. Maybe you could explain what you believe a failed merge looks like.
Having to drive slow in the acceleration lane is failing to merge. It doesn't matter if eventually you are able to enter the through lane.
So, here's the issue I have with the idea of "remove the yield signs from ramps, expect everyone to zipper merge".
Regardless of how efficient this may be if everyone did it, when you aim to change driver behavior over what is the current norm you are inevitably going to have drivers on the road who are all in various states of having gotten the memo or not having gotten the memo.
Currently, the ramp is expected to yield, and drivers who are on the freeway expect entering traffic to yield to them.
Trying to shift this is inevitably going to lead to situations where a driver in the right lane on the freeway (still thinking with the current method in mind) sees someone coming down the ramp but does nothing because they expect to be yielded to, but the driver on the ramp (with the proposed method in mind), because he's in front, keeps going because he's expecting the driver on the freeway to let him in as a zipper merge.
This... is a great way to cause a crash.
Why. Do. I. Feel. Like. I. Am. Beating. A. Dead. Horse.
Quote from: yand on April 08, 2019, 12:07:34 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
The merge cannot occur at one point
Because it is blocked.
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
so it occurs at another
Unless it is blocked at that point as well.
Then it occurs at another point. We could go on, and on, but please, let's not.
Just acknowledge the chances of a merge being "blocked", in free flowing traffic, for the entire length of the acceleration lane are effectively 0%.
Quote from: yand on April 08, 2019, 12:07:34 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 10:51:06 PM
Quote from: yand on April 07, 2019, 07:20:04 PM
It is interesting, the lengths you are going to, to blame every failed merge on ramp cars.
I'm saying there isn't any blame to dish out because merges don't just "fail".
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 04:53:02 PM
If you feel you are being blocked in under these circumstances, it is because of a bad decision you made earlier. Either you were too aggressive or you were too slow, depends on the situation, but 100% avoidable either way.
Sounds like blame to me
If you are bound and determined to ride along next to somebody and claim that you are "blocked" until you run out of lane and sputter into the shoulder, then yes, you are to blame, and you are also lacking intuition. Isn't that obvious?
But most drivers don't actually
do that, because that's a really silly thing to do. They get over when they can and move on with their business. Case closed. Nobody has failed, and nobody blames anybody for anything.
Quote from: yand on April 08, 2019, 12:07:34 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 07, 2019, 04:53:02 PM
If they can't happen at one point, they happen at another. Maybe you could explain what you believe a failed merge looks like.
Having to drive slow in the acceleration lane is failing to merge. It doesn't matter if eventually you are able to enter the through lane.
fail /fāl/ verb 1. be unsuccessful in achieving one's goal.
You should already be up to speed -- or close to it -- by the time you reach the freeway. If you have to slow down a bit or speed up a bit to get into a gap, then so be it. If you merge into the freeway as intended at any point, the merge (the goal) was not unsuccessful.
Unless you can make a compelling case that a merge
must occur at one specific point, and if it does not occur at that point, there are profound and long-lasting negative consequences. You are welcome to it -- best wishes.
Quote from: webny99 on April 08, 2019, 10:19:57 AM
Just acknowledge the chances of a merge being "blocked", in free flowing traffic, for the entire length of the acceleration lane are effectively 0%.
It is not about the length of acceleration lane, it is about speed differential between the acceleration lane and the travel lane. I calculated the choices above - there is not a lot of choice; and 2-3-4 truck travelling at a normal following distance can easily lock you off. Truck drivers are usually much more courteous than an average driver, so chances of getting into that situation are low; but getting no merge chance is a possible scenario.
Well, if you're trained with roundabouts and can merge with a bumper-to-bumper distance equal to a thickness of a piece of paper, things may be a bit easier..
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 07, 2019, 08:40:56 AM
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 05:06:48 PM
.... People aren't really going to attempt to shut you out–they understand you are just entering the roadway.
....
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
And my point above was simply along the lines of, "Of course they know you're entering the highway. Some people will still speed up or otherwise try to keep you out of 'their' lane."
In terms of trying to block people in slow traffic, no doubt part of what causes this around here is that at some interchanges, when traffic is slow people already on the highway will cut right into the onramp acceleration lane, drive down the end, and try to cut back in, so sometimes you never know who's legitimately entering the highway and who's trying to cut the line. (This is not the same thing as running the C/D road.
Here's a Street View example of a spot where what I'm talking about happens all the time. (https://www.google.com/maps/@38.8655921,-77.0525979,3a,75y,73.95h,78.61t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMvjsq4UGWf4CyoyTM7TSNQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656) When traffic is slow, some people in the lane where the Google Car is will cut right immediately at the end of that curb to use the acceleration lane to the right, which ends under that overpass up ahead. Some will then fight to get back into traffic, others will just drive on the shoulder unless people move over to block it.)
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 11:16:17 AM
Quote from: kphoger on April 06, 2019, 10:21:45 AM
I move over as soon as I can, even if I'm going 40mph. Staying in the acceleration lane until I reach the speed limit runs the risk of 1) a speeder on the freeway catching up and blocking the merge, or 2) a faster car behind me darting onto the freeway then passing me, blocking the merge.
I didn't say that. Please fix your quote attribution.
Quote from: Duke87 on April 08, 2019, 12:38:44 AM
So, here's the issue I have with the idea of "remove the yield signs from ramps, expect everyone to zipper merge".
Regardless of how efficient this may be if everyone did it, when you aim to change driver behavior over what is the current norm you are inevitably going to have drivers on the road who are all in various states of having gotten the memo or not having gotten the memo.
Currently, the ramp is expected to yield, and drivers who are on the freeway expect entering traffic to yield to them.
Trying to shift this is inevitably going to lead to situations where a driver in the right lane on the freeway (still thinking with the current method in mind) sees someone coming down the ramp but does nothing because they expect to be yielded to, but the driver on the ramp (with the proposed method in mind), because he's in front, keeps going because he's expecting the driver on the freeway to let him in as a zipper merge.
This... is a great way to cause a crash.
I titled this post with the impression that removing yield signs would change right of way rules. Now that I've been informed that's not the case, an alternative would be to put up signs and markings at all ramps. People would get used to the new way very quickly.
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2019, 02:10:13 PM
Quote from: webny99 on April 06, 2019, 11:16:17 AM
Quote from: yand
I move over as soon as I can, even if I'm going 40mph. Staying in the acceleration lane until I reach the speed limit runs the risk of 1) a speeder on the freeway catching up and blocking the merge, or 2) a faster car behind me darting onto the freeway then passing me, blocking the merge.
I didn't say that. Please fix your quote attribution.
Oops. Please forgive me; I was on mobile, so since you had pre-trimmed the quote from yand that I wanted to reply to, I quoted your quote. And then I screwed up. Should be fixed.
Quote from: yand on April 08, 2019, 03:44:40 PM
I titled this post with the impression that removing yield signs would change right of way rules. Now that I've been informed that's not the case, an alternative would be to put up signs and markings at all ramps.
A better and cheaper alternative would be to leave things the way they are. The system works.
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2019, 04:12:51 PM
Quote from: yand on April 08, 2019, 03:44:40 PM
I titled this post with the impression that removing yield signs would change right of way rules. Now that I've been informed that's not the case, an alternative would be to put up signs and markings at all ramps.
A better and cheaper alternative would be to leave things the way they are. The system works.
It is in fact possible for something to work, and for an improvement upon it to work better. Everything we have now is the result of generations of mostly incremental improvement.
Quote from: yand on April 08, 2019, 04:19:30 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 08, 2019, 04:12:51 PM
Quote from: yand on April 08, 2019, 03:44:40 PM
I titled this post with the impression that removing yield signs would change right of way rules. Now that I've been informed that's not the case, an alternative would be to put up signs and markings at all ramps.
A better and cheaper alternative would be to leave things the way they are. The system works.
It is in fact possible for something to work, and for an improvement upon it to work better. Everything we have now is the result of generations of mostly incremental improvement.
Yes, but we don't agree that making through traffic on the highway slow down or move over is an improvement on the way things currently work.
I think the MUTCD should add new warning and regulatory signs specific for merging. Signs that denote the approach type (acceleration lane/suicide entrance/long ramp followed by small merge area), speed of oncoming road and where to start merging.
Similar to PA's "Begin turn here" signs, use "Start merge here" signs where the acceleration lane begins to end.
Use "speed limit xx ahead signs" on all ramps
Use warning signs reading "long approach, short approach, no merge area, merge at speed limit". "No merge area" should be supplemented with "prepare to stop"
Add "do not stop" signage on acceleration ramps.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
"No merge area"
I'd settle for just this, where appropriate. On-ramps with sufficient merge area should be kept as-is, so these would stand out. To put different types of signs at every single on-ramp would only invite people to ignore
all of them, but doing this would make the important ones stand out.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
Add "do not stop" signage on acceleration ramps.
Bad idea. That would be officially directing people into a potential wreck. Side-swipe a car in the through lanes, and you could simply tell the judge that a regulatory sign said you shouldn't have stopped.
Example of a ramp with yield and no merge area signs: https://goo.gl/maps/x71JvwtcJ9x
Quote from: Big John on April 10, 2019, 04:16:35 PM
Example of a ramp with yield and no merge area signs: https://goo.gl/maps/x71JvwtcJ9x
I really like that signage.
Quote from: kphoger on April 10, 2019, 04:03:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
"No merge area"
I'd settle for just this, where appropriate. On-ramps with sufficient merge area should be kept as-is, so these would stand out. To put different types of signs at every single on-ramp would only invite people to ignore all of them, but doing this would make the important ones stand out.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
Add "do not stop" signage on acceleration ramps.
Bad idea. That would be officially directing people into a potential wreck. Side-swipe a car in the through lanes, and you could simply tell the judge that a regulatory sign said you shouldn't have stopped.
You wouldn't use that sign when there's no merge area. It's meant to stand for "do not come to a complete stop in the acceleration lane". Or maybe it should say "keep up speed" instead. Bottom line, they need to be told its not okay to significaly slow down when it is unsafe and unreasonable.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 05:59:26 PM
You wouldn't use that sign when there's no merge area. It's meant to stand for "do not come to a complete stop in the acceleration lane". Or maybe it should say "keep up speed" instead. Bottom line, they need to be told its not okay to significaly slow down when it is unsafe and unreasonable.
I know what you meant. But there are rare occasions on which one actually needs to stop in order to avoid a wreck. Instructing a person not to stop in such a wreck is not so good.
Also, if a timid 80-year-old lady would rather stop and wait for a huge gap in traffic, then I'd rather that happen than she try and do a maneuver beyond her ability and risk something far worse.
I'm positive I've seen a ramp somewhere in Northern Virginia with a yellow "No Merge Area" diamond-shaped warning sign, but I'm completely blanking on where it is or was.
Quote from: kphoger on April 10, 2019, 04:03:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 10, 2019, 03:50:13 PM
"No merge area"
I'd settle for just this, where appropriate. On-ramps with sufficient merge area should be kept as-is, so these would stand out. To put different types of signs at every single on-ramp would only invite people to ignore all of them, but doing this would make the important ones stand out.
In construction zones where merging space is limited, Oklahoma DOT posts a standard Merge Ahead sign on the ramp with "NO MERGE AREA" as a supplemental plaque. So it's not a new practice.
Quote from: 1995hoo on April 10, 2019, 06:22:48 PM
I'm positive I've seen a ramp somewhere in Northern Virginia with a yellow "No Merge Area" diamond-shaped warning sign, but I'm completely blanking on where it is or was.
There's a bunch on US-50 in the Fort Myer/Courthouse/Rosslyn areas.
(https://i.imgur.com/2REZfNS.png)
^^^^
Thank you! That's exactly the sort of sign I was thinking of. I don't use that particular ramp very often, but I know which one it is.
And a somewhat extreme example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.409341,-73.6910528,3a,90y,337.32h,73.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spMUiXFqrleAenqIxoB4Qig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Granted, visibility is obscured by road bend - but the result is there is no enough time to accelerate before another car rear-ends you.
Quote from: kalvado on April 11, 2019, 11:42:17 AM
And a somewhat extreme example:
https://www.google.com/maps/@42.409341,-73.6910528,3a,90y,337.32h,73.6t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1spMUiXFqrleAenqIxoB4Qig!2e0!7i13312!8i6656
Granted, visibility is obscured by road bend - but the result is there is no enough time to accelerate before another car rear-ends you.
That doesn't seem to be any different than a regular slip lane, which are almost all posted with yield signs, regardless of visibility. This is a good example (http://bit.ly/2Idxf1j). Strange they'd use a stop sign.
Here's an example on I-81 in Carlisle, PA (https://goo.gl/maps/49Ky2eXfLgt) where the 'no merge area' plaques are used. Going back to 2012 there used to be a diamond shaped 'no merge area' sign. Unlike the New York example, there is actually a very short acceleration lane present.
Quote from: Revive 755 on April 11, 2019, 10:32:31 PM
Here's an example on I-81 in Carlisle, PA (https://goo.gl/maps/49Ky2eXfLgt) where the 'no merge area' plaques are used. Going back to 2012 there used to be a diamond shaped 'no merge area' sign. Unlike the New York example, there is actually a very short acceleration lane present.
Very strange. Plenty long enough merge area. I would venture to say that most merges in WA have less room than that!
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2019, 08:21:28 AM
. . .Those on the highway have the right-of-way. . .
Not in Illinois. Traffic in the on-ramp has the ROW and traffic on the Interstate must move over or slow down to accommodate. Yup, I know, I was floored when I found out too. No one here knows this so it's not really an issue until there's an accident and YOU end up with the ticket when you were just minding your own business in the right lane.
Quote from: Paulinator66 on April 12, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2019, 08:21:28 AM
. . .Those on the highway have the right-of-way. . .
Not in Illinois. Traffic in the on-ramp has the ROW and traffic on the Interstate must move over or slow down to accommodate. Yup, I know, I was floored when I found out too. No one here knows this so it's not really an issue until there's an accident and YOU end up with the ticket when you were just minding your own business in the right lane.
First place I've ever heard of that being the case. In Kentucky, ramp traffic must yield to the through traffic already on the highway. The through route has the ROW.
Quote from: Paulinator66 on April 12, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2019, 08:21:28 AM
. . .Those on the highway have the right-of-way. . .
Not in Illinois. Traffic in the on-ramp has the ROW and traffic on the Interstate must move over or slow down to accommodate. Yup, I know, I was floored when I found out too. No one here knows this so it's not really an issue until there's an accident and YOU end up with the ticket when you were just minding your own business in the right lane.
Who told you that? What I see in the Illinois vehicle code is as follows:
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-901: Vehicles approaching or entering intersection
(a) When 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different roadways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
(b) The right-of-way rule declared in paragraph (a) of this Section is modified at through highways and otherwise as stated in this Chapter.
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-905: Merging traffic
Notwithstanding the right-of-way provision in Section 11-901 of this Act, 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.
Basically, it is equally the responsibility of
both drivers to make accommodation.
No merge area is one thing. I really want them to make it idiot proof. Give the driver every single hint possible about the merge.
KYTC has used "SHORT MERGE AREA" plaques on the New Circle Rd (KY 4) ramps in Lexington.
I think that's pretty effective in letting motorists know about the condition.
Mainline:
https://goo.gl/maps/BqMr5RCqy5L2
Ramp:
https://goo.gl/maps/TLvhXZeJq3p
Wow... I misinterpreted "no merge area" in these last few replies as in "you are not allowed to merge here".
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2019, 01:51:46 PM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on April 12, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2019, 08:21:28 AM
. . .Those on the highway have the right-of-way. . .
Not in Illinois. Traffic in the on-ramp has the ROW and traffic on the Interstate must move over or slow down to accommodate. Yup, I know, I was floored when I found out too. No one here knows this so it's not really an issue until there's an accident and YOU end up with the ticket when you were just minding your own business in the right lane.
Who told you that? What I see in the Illinois vehicle code is as follows:
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-901: Vehicles approaching or entering intersection
(a) When 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different roadways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
(b) The right-of-way rule declared in paragraph (a) of this Section is modified at through highways and otherwise as stated in this Chapter.
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-905: Merging traffic
Notwithstanding the right-of-way provision in Section 11-901 of this Act, 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.
Basically, it is equally the responsibility of both drivers to make accommodation.
Interesting. Is there another law effective in IL that overrides this?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2019, 06:45:14 PM
No merge area is one thing. I really want them to make it idiot proof. Give the driver every single hint possible about the merge.
Before each ramp I do want details about the merge including 1) whether I will be able to maintain the speed limit through the ramp onto the road, 2) how long the effective acceleration area is adjusted for grade, 3) the window of lateral visibility available from the beginning of the obscuration to the end of the merge area. The most realistic way to offer this is probably as a GPS feature.
Quote from: CardInLex on April 12, 2019, 08:21:13 PM
KYTC has used "SHORT MERGE AREA" plaques on the New Circle Rd (KY 4) ramps in Lexington.
I think that's pretty effective in letting motorists know about the condition.
Mainline:
https://goo.gl/maps/BqMr5RCqy5L2
Ramp:
https://goo.gl/maps/TLvhXZeJq3p
Those must be fairly new installs, but then again, I try to avoid the Nicholasville-New Circle interchange as much as possible.
They've used something similar at New Circle and Newtown, but I suspect those will go away when the reconstruction of that interchange is finished.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2019, 06:45:14 PM
No merge area is one thing. I really want them to make it idiot proof. Give the driver every single hint possible about the merge.
You mean, like a YIELD SIGN?????
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2019, 12:14:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2019, 06:45:14 PM
No merge area is one thing. I really want them to make it idiot proof. Give the driver every single hint possible about the merge.
You mean, like a YIELD SIGN?????
No, I mean signs that 1) say the length of the merge in general terminology, 2) display the speed limit of the approaching highway, and 3) mark the point where the merge lane ends as where vehicles should begin to merge. You tell them to yield but you don't tell them why.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2019, 02:16:48 PM
You tell them to yield but you don't tell them why.
What? No other yield (or stop signs for that matter) come with an explanation as to why one must yield or stop. What makes freeway entrances so special?
Quote from: yand on April 12, 2019, 09:54:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2019, 01:51:46 PM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on April 12, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2019, 08:21:28 AM
. . .Those on the highway have the right-of-way. . .
Not in Illinois. Traffic in the on-ramp has the ROW and traffic on the Interstate must move over or slow down to accommodate. Yup, I know, I was floored when I found out too. No one here knows this so it's not really an issue until there's an accident and YOU end up with the ticket when you were just minding your own business in the right lane.
Who told you that? What I see in the Illinois vehicle code is as follows:
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-901: Vehicles approaching or entering intersection
(a) When 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different roadways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
(b) The right-of-way rule declared in paragraph (a) of this Section is modified at through highways and otherwise as stated in this Chapter.
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-905: Merging traffic
Notwithstanding the right-of-way provision in Section 11-901 of this Act, 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.
Basically, it is equally the responsibility of both drivers to make accommodation.
Interesting. Is there another law effective in IL that overrides this?
Not that I found, or else I would have posted it. If you find one, please let us know.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2019, 06:45:14 PM
I really want them to make it idiot proof. Give the driver every single hint possible about the merge.
Making roads idiot-proof only encourages people to switch off their brains while driving. Only as much as information as required should be given through signage; beyond that, people need to open their eyes and turn on their brains.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2019, 02:16:48 PM
1) say the length of the merge in general terminology
"No merge area"
vs no additional signage should be all that's needed. No additional signage means you should have enough room to merge.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2019, 02:16:48 PM
2) display the speed limit of the approaching highway
Unnecessary. Even if you don't know the exact speed limit of a highway, you can be reasonably sure it's between 50 and 70 mph. Aiming for any number in that range should make it fairly easy to adjust your speed according to the prevailing speed of traffic.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2019, 02:16:48 PM
mark the point where the merge lane ends as where vehicles should begin to merge.
The end of the merge lane is where vehicles should have
already merged, not where they should
begin. If an acceleration lane is fairly long, there's probably a good reason for that–you might need some extra time to juggle vehicles and merge appropriately–but, absent that reason, why not merge early?
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2019, 02:16:48 PM
You tell them to yield but you don't tell them why.
'Why' is implied by the Yield sign: because the other traffic has the right of way.
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 14, 2019, 02:16:48 PM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 14, 2019, 12:14:36 PM
Quote from: RobbieL2415 on April 12, 2019, 06:45:14 PM
No merge area is one thing. I really want them to make it idiot proof. Give the driver every single hint possible about the merge.
You mean, like a YIELD SIGN?????
No, I mean signs that 1) say the length of the merge in general terminology, 2) display the speed limit of the approaching highway, and 3) mark the point where the merge lane ends as where vehicles should begin to merge. You tell them to yield but you don't tell them why.
OK, well, there's this: For some reason after a construction project, on the acceleration lanes they added "Right Lane Ends 900 Feet", "Lane Ends Merge Left", and then the symbolic lane ends signage at the end of the acceleration lane. See https://goo.gl/maps/RoGHDfgW9BC2 for the first sign, then advance for the next two signs (NJ typically puts the symbol sign at the end of the lane, rather than in advance). They only did this for a series of interchanges for about 7 miles. Maybe it was an experiment or something, but it's not something I've seen duplicated since.
So this covers your #1 in some detail and covers point #3. Since you're merging onto the highway, you should be speeding up to safely merge in, and the next speed limit sign is often located very close to the point of entering the highway.
I feel like I need to comment on this since this exact problem (overuse of yield control) got me extremely close to a major wreck a few hours ago.
I was in the right lane with a line of traffic beside me in the left lane and a teenager in a Mercedes blew through this yield sign (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8936256,-73.9410678,3a,60y,21.15h,76.79t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sUogpa6l78nJZtyCXNxlgIQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192). He was probably going around 25 as he entered the right lane and I had to swerve into the left lane to avoid him. If the car to my left were 15 feet farther ahead it would've been a three car wreck, possibly more if people behind were tailgating.
Of course this was the Merc driver's fault, but I think road design was a cause here too. Nearly every ramp on the PIP in NJ has a yield sign, including ramps with extremely long acceleration lanes. Here's an example (https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8815631,-73.9474973,3a,75y,18.36h,77.39t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sSUWT0DlY81_CDQzJrJGEhA!2e0!7i13312!8i6656), this ramp has a ~1,400' acceleration lane, double the minimum green book value based on my rough calculation. I'd argue the majority of yield signs for ramps on the PIP are unnecessary.
Using yield signs like this leads to disrespect for all similar yield signs. On some of the ramps, like the one where I almost crashed, you definitely need to slow down and wait for a gap and a yield sign is warranted. On others, obeying the yield sign and slowing down is not only unnecessary but is also just asking to get rear-ended. Indiscriminate use of yield control forces drivers to make an undue, split-second decision between slowing down or speeding up with high crash potential if they make the wrong choice.
Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2019, 01:44:50 PM
Quote from: yand on April 12, 2019, 09:54:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2019, 01:51:46 PM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on April 12, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2019, 08:21:28 AM
. . .Those on the highway have the right-of-way. . .
Not in Illinois. Traffic in the on-ramp has the ROW and traffic on the Interstate must move over or slow down to accommodate. Yup, I know, I was floored when I found out too. No one here knows this so it's not really an issue until there's an accident and YOU end up with the ticket when you were just minding your own business in the right lane.
Who told you that? What I see in the Illinois vehicle code is as follows:
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-901: Vehicles approaching or entering intersection
(a) When 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different roadways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
(b) The right-of-way rule declared in paragraph (a) of this Section is modified at through highways and otherwise as stated in this Chapter.
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-905: Merging traffic
Notwithstanding the right-of-way provision in Section 11-901 of this Act, 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.
Basically, it is equally the responsibility of both drivers to make accommodation.
Interesting. Is there another law effective in IL that overrides this?
Not that I found, or else I would have posted it. If you find one, please let us know.
The reason I ask is if this law is the case and applies to freeways, then at least one state already has a similar law to the one I am suggesting, which means it's not as radical as some people make it out to be :cool:
Quote from: yand on April 15, 2019, 08:55:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2019, 01:44:50 PM
Quote from: yand on April 12, 2019, 09:54:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2019, 01:51:46 PM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on April 12, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2019, 08:21:28 AM
. . .Those on the highway have the right-of-way. . .
Not in Illinois. Traffic in the on-ramp has the ROW and traffic on the Interstate must move over or slow down to accommodate. Yup, I know, I was floored when I found out too. No one here knows this so it's not really an issue until there's an accident and YOU end up with the ticket when you were just minding your own business in the right lane.
Who told you that? What I see in the Illinois vehicle code is as follows:
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-901: Vehicles approaching or entering intersection
(a) When 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different roadways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
(b) The right-of-way rule declared in paragraph (a) of this Section is modified at through highways and otherwise as stated in this Chapter.
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-905: Merging traffic
Notwithstanding the right-of-way provision in Section 11-901 of this Act, 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.
Basically, it is equally the responsibility of both drivers to make accommodation.
Interesting. Is there another law effective in IL that overrides this?
Not that I found, or else I would have posted it. If you find one, please let us know.
The reason I ask is if this law is the case and applies to freeways, then at least one state already has a similar law to the one I am suggesting, which means it's not as radical as some people make it out to be :cool:
Well, 1 out of 50 is about as radical as it gets.
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 15, 2019, 09:43:50 PM
Quote from: yand on April 15, 2019, 08:55:55 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 15, 2019, 01:44:50 PM
Quote from: yand on April 12, 2019, 09:54:08 PM
Quote from: kphoger on April 12, 2019, 01:51:46 PM
Quote from: Paulinator66 on April 12, 2019, 09:46:39 AM
Quote from: jeffandnicole on April 03, 2019, 08:21:28 AM
. . .Those on the highway have the right-of-way. . .
Not in Illinois. Traffic in the on-ramp has the ROW and traffic on the Interstate must move over or slow down to accommodate. Yup, I know, I was floored when I found out too. No one here knows this so it's not really an issue until there's an accident and YOU end up with the ticket when you were just minding your own business in the right lane.
Who told you that? What I see in the Illinois vehicle code is as follows:
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-901: Vehicles approaching or entering intersection
(a) When 2 vehicles approach or enter an intersection from different roadways at approximately the same time, the driver of the vehicle on the left must yield the right-of-way to the vehicle on the right.
(b) The right-of-way rule declared in paragraph (a) of this Section is modified at through highways and otherwise as stated in this Chapter.
Quote from: 625 ILCS 5/ Illinois Vehicle Code, Sec. 11-905: Merging traffic
Notwithstanding the right-of-way provision in Section 11-901 of this Act, 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.
Basically, it is equally the responsibility of both drivers to make accommodation.
Interesting. Is there another law effective in IL that overrides this?
Not that I found, or else I would have posted it. If you find one, please let us know.
The reason I ask is if this law is the case and applies to freeways, then at least one state already has a similar law to the one I am suggesting, which means it's not as radical as some people make it out to be :cool:
Well, 1 out of 50 is about as radical as it gets.
Well, I can no longer find the law that supports my earlier assertion but I can assure you that this was the case at one time in Illinois.
I know this because a friend once stated that he got a ticket for this very offense while driving up in the Chicago area many years ago. I told him he was full of crap because we all learned otherwise in school. I looked up the law just to prove him wrong and, sure enough, he was correct; there was a law stating that and I had to admit to him that I was wrong.
Now, in today's world, I can find no evidence that supports any of this so I suspect the law has been changed or repealed at some time over the preceding years. I DID find a Chicago attorney's web site that states this but it simply may not have been updated recently. Here's that site. . .see his fourth bullet point:
https://www.chicagolawyer.com/understanding-right-of-way/Also, I would argue that 625 ILCS 5/11-905 does not apply to highways since it begins "
. . .at an intersection where traffic lanes are provided for merging. . .." There are no intersections on a freeway, by design, so there must be another law that applies although I'm no attorney so I have yet to find it.
I'm still looking.
Quote from: Paulinator66 on April 16, 2019, 12:15:41 PM
There are no intersections on a freeway, by design.
Merge points at on-ramps and gores at off-ramps are three-leg intersections where every leg is one-way.