lane striping to prevent left lane losers?

[jeffandnicole]

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

Well, drivers entering a highway are supposed to yield.  The motorist on the highway already has his position on the roadway - he doesn't have to slow down or speed up to accommodate someone else.

[1995hoo]

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

Well, drivers entering a highway are supposed to yield.  The motorist on the highway already has his position on the roadway - he doesn't have to slow down or speed up to accommodate someone else.

On the other hand, if they guy already on the road has an open lane to his left, he's an asshole if he doesn't move over to let the other guy merge onto the highway (barring special situations like if he's using the next exit and it's immediately after the onramp, as sometimes happens in urban areas).

[Big John]

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

Well, drivers entering a highway are supposed to yield.  The motorist on the highway already has his position on the roadway - he doesn't have to slow down or speed up to accommodate someone else.

Of course in Wisconsin, they are told the opposite even though what you said is correct.

[briantroutman]

Well, drivers entering a highway are supposed to yield.  The motorist on the highway already has his position on the roadway - he doesn't have to slow down or speed up to accommodate someone else.

I was referring to situations where there's a very high volume merge and traffic (in all lanes) is either stopped or crawling at single-digit speeds. I don't think anyone would argue that traffic queued on an on-ramp in such a condition should have to wait until the traffic has actually cleared–which could be hours.

[jeffandnicole]

Well, drivers entering a highway are supposed to yield.  The motorist on the highway already has his position on the roadway - he doesn't have to slow down or speed up to accommodate someone else.

I was referring to situations where there's a very high volume merge and traffic (in all lanes) is either stopped or crawling at single-digit speeds. I don't think anyone would argue that traffic queued on an on-ramp in such a condition should have to wait until the traffic has actually cleared—which could be hours.

Yeah, that's something different.  Dealing with congestion on a daily basis, I see that from time to time...and once you recognize the guy won't let you in, just hang for a second and usually the next car is more forgiving. 

A co-worker of mine was dealing with congestion like that, and as he merged in, got hit.  Low speed, so there was only minor damage. Guess what though...my co-worker got the ticket.  Even though there was congestion and people were doing the zipper merge thing, the law sided with the guy already on the highway.

[vdeane]

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

Well, drivers entering a highway are supposed to yield.  The motorist on the highway already has his position on the roadway - he doesn't have to slow down or speed up to accommodate someone else.

Nice theory.  Doesn't work with real-world traffic counts though.  Not even in many rural areas.

[empirestate]

Yeah, that's something different.  Dealing with congestion on a daily basis, I see that from time to time...and once you recognize the guy won't let you in, just hang for a second and usually the next car is more forgiving. 

I find that by keeping relative pace with the slow line of traffic, you're more likely to find a spot open up on its own before even having to worry about budging in at the last minute. You will frequently find that an opening just occurs naturally in front of a slow-to-accelerate vehicle (i.e., truck or old person, or texter).

[Avalanchez71]

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

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

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

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



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

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

The problem in TN is that you have a mix of folks that are either going to block the guy from getting in or you have the guy that is going to let several cars in.  The biggest problem with I-65 at SR 840 north to the merge is that the "right lane runner" travels at a much higher speed in the right lane than the center and left lanes.  The speed differential bothers me more on a safety standpoint than it does with hey jack leg wait your turn.

Just a little background, I-65 increases at around the 59 MM to three lanes just south of SR 840.  The on-ramp was designed so that there is plenty of room for the merging lanes of traffic from SR 840 to enter I-65.  However; one mile and half later the lanes reduce again to two lanes just prior to SSR 246.  The on-ramp from SSR 246 is ridiculously short as well.  So after you deal with the right lane runners and late mergers, you have to then immediately deal with on-ramp folks who do not have much room to get on the highway to no fault of their own.

[Alps]

Just so we're clear, a study was done with "merge late" (at the closure), "merge early" (1-2 miles in advance), and "dynamic merge" (signs saying "MERGE HERE" start flashing at 1/2 mile, 1 mile, etc., depending on backups, so that the merge point is always upstream of the queue). The findings were all within a few dozen vehicles per hour of capacity - which, given the variability between different areas, is essentially meaningless. So let's at least throw out the idea that one of those three options is any better from a capacity or efficiency standpoint.

[NE2]

So let's at least throw out the idea that one of those three options is any better from a capacity or efficiency standpoint.

Only if the backup never stretches back to the next intersection/interchange.

[Alps]

So let's at least throw out the idea that one of those three options is any better from a capacity or efficiency standpoint.

Only if the backup never stretches back to the next intersection/interchange.

That still wouldn't affect the capacity at the choke point, which is not necessarily the merge point. The general choke point in a work zone occurs in the section with the fewest number of available lanes, and where a combination of the following conditions are most serious: work zone activity (noise, dust, light, workers), police with lights on, bumps/dips/grooved pavement, narrow lanes. Most often, the choke point is either the start of the lane closure or, for work like deck sawing or line striping that has a lot of activity near the lanes, the actual point where work is taking place. It's not back in the merge.

[NE2]

My point is that more cars can fit in the available space if you merge at the end. Throughput may be the same, but the actual beginning of the backup will be farther ahead.

[Alps]

My point is that more cars can fit in the available space if you merge at the end. Throughput may be the same, but the actual beginning of the backup will be farther ahead.

That is definitely an advantage when you have exits coming in.

[architect77]

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

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

So true. Once I was driving on an arterial road somewhere near New Brunswick or Piscataway, NJ. At least 5-6 lanes of traffic had to constrict to 1 or 1.5 lanes to go under some old trestle bridge. In pure Yankee fashion, everyone did their best to be the next car to go under, so like an efficient, fast zipper, traffic easily traversed the obstacle. If just one person had tried to be kind and let some ahead of them, it would have killed all the momentum and screwed up everything!

[Mergingtraffic]

I notice, when there is an on-ramp and it forms a new lane with an off ramp a mile ahead. People merge right away, even though they have a mile to do so.  Some people actually brake and almost come to a stop to do so causing back ups. but if they just used the mile to merge or change a lane, it would be fine.  Here's an example...check out the 3rd lane southbound between the on-ramp and off-ramp, people tend to merge within the first 500 FT no matter how long the 3rd lane is:

https://www.google.com/maps?q=derby,+ct&hl=en&ll=41.321332,-73.083587&spn=0.006422,0.009645&sll=41.500765,-72.757507&sspn=1.639436,2.469177&t=k&hnear=Derby,+New+Haven,+Connecticut&z=17

[vdeane]

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

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

So true. Once I was driving on an arterial road somewhere near New Brunswick or Piscataway, NJ. At least 5-6 lanes of traffic had to constrict to 1 or 1.5 lanes to go under some old trestle bridge. In pure Yankee fashion, everyone did their best to be the next car to go under, so like an efficient, fast zipper, traffic easily traversed the obstacle. If just one person had tried to be kind and let some ahead of them, it would have killed all the momentum and screwed up everything!

What happens if you're not the type of person who aggressively asserts right of way?  I won't because I often fear getting into an accident (or in some cases, breaking the law, such as NYC's "keep turning left after the light turned red").

[Alps]

I notice, when there is an on-ramp and it forms a new lane with an off ramp a mile ahead. People merge right away, even though they have a mile to do so.

Something that annoys me: People who merge over even though their ramp ADDS A LANE. Then again, it leaves me plenty of room to cut around them and get back in my lane like they never existed.

[Duke87]

Something that annoys me: People who merge over even though their ramp ADDS A LANE.

I will confess I am guilty of doing this with onramps I am unfamiliar with, because habit prods me to assume all I'm going to get is an acceleration lane.

But then, I'm not the type to drive in the right lane if there are three or more lanes available - because inevitably I'll want to drive faster than everyone else in it. So even if I'm conscious of there being an added lane, it's a maneuver I'd normally make anyway.

[andy]

To wander a little farther off topic, some comments remind me of a story I've heard about never lurking in the left most lane, particularly at night.  Impaired drivers who get on in the wrong direction generally move to their right, which approaches you from your left.  News reports rarely mention it, but I wonder with each wrong way collision reported, was it in the left lane?

Myself, even if modest stretches of open lanes exist, I stay right except near exchanges when three or more are available.  Then I move the number two lane.  I suppose some are annoyed about my moving around too much, but so be it.

And back to the original post; interesting idea, but I have no delusions about the persistence of bad driving habits.  Lane lurkers would quickly catch on and follow over.

[1995hoo]

Something that annoys me: People who merge over even though their ramp ADDS A LANE.

I will confess I am guilty of doing this with onramps I am unfamiliar with, because habit prods me to assume all I'm going to get is an acceleration lane.

But then, I'm not the type to drive in the right lane if there are three or more lanes available - because inevitably I'll want to drive faster than everyone else in it. So even if I'm conscious of there being an added lane, it's a maneuver I'd normally make anyway.

I think it's also reasonable to move over if you know there's another ramp entering from the right up ahead.

[jeffandnicole]

I notice, when there is an on-ramp and it forms a new lane with an off ramp a mile ahead. People merge right away, even though they have a mile to do so.  Some people actually brake and almost come to a stop to do so causing back ups. but if they just used the mile to merge or change a lane, it would be fine.  Here's an example...check out the 3rd lane southbound between the on-ramp and off-ramp, people tend to merge within the first 500 FT no matter how long the 3rd lane is:

https://www.google.com/maps?q=derby,+ct&hl=en&ll=41.321332,-73.083587&spn=0.006422,0.009645&sll=41.500765,-72.757507&sspn=1.639436,2.469177&t=k&hnear=Derby,+New+Haven,+Connecticut&z=17

In a relatively similiar issue: Merging onto a highway that is already jammed.  Do you merge in ASAP, or do you go further down the accel lane?

My thought on this is: Keep moving to the end of the lane (unless there's room to merge in prior to that).  Especially on curved ramps where the sight line is limited, this allows traffic coming down the ramp room to use the lane as well, rather than slamming on their brakes potentially backing up traffic on the ramp.

[kphoger]

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

That's one reason I like a paved left shoulder:  more room to navigate around the high and mighty truck driver who thinks straddling the white line at 15 mph is his moral responsibility.