Road Rage

[kalvado]

One common move is when someone is crossing an arterial road, but one direction of the arterial is jammed up (and it's the side the driver is entering from). The drivers in the jammed side leave a gap, and the car enters into the roadway about halfway. Eventually, the driver noses so far into the opposing (free flow) direction that someone eventually stops to let them in, even though it's not their right-of-way. This should be common courtesy, but I don't recall seeing it often in the US.

My experience in the U.S. has been the complete opposite.  Yes, some drivers won't let anyone in, but eventually, absolutely.

This is why I tend to choose what is essentially the exact opposite course of action, to leave a long enough gap in front of me for multiple cars to get over.

That's just another annoying extreme.  Zipper!

Common language equivalent: let ME go first! Me! Me!! ME!!!

[Rothman]

One common move is when someone is crossing an arterial road, but one direction of the arterial is jammed up (and it's the side the driver is entering from). The drivers in the jammed side leave a gap, and the car enters into the roadway about halfway. Eventually, the driver noses so far into the opposing (free flow) direction that someone eventually stops to let them in, even though it's not their right-of-way. This should be common courtesy, but I don't recall seeing it often in the US.

My experience in the U.S. has been the complete opposite.  Yes, some drivers won't let anyone in, but eventually, absolutely.

This is why I tend to choose what is essentially the exact opposite course of action, to leave a long enough gap in front of me for multiple cars to get over.

That's just another annoying extreme.  Zipper!

Common language equivalent: let ME go first! Me! Me!! ME!!!

Ideally, no.  People should use the full capacity of the roadway and take turns at the merge point.

If anything, if you don't zipper and people in the lane to be merged into refuse to allow the merge, it's them that are saying "me first."

[kalvado]

One common move is when someone is crossing an arterial road, but one direction of the arterial is jammed up (and it's the side the driver is entering from). The drivers in the jammed side leave a gap, and the car enters into the roadway about halfway. Eventually, the driver noses so far into the opposing (free flow) direction that someone eventually stops to let them in, even though it's not their right-of-way. This should be common courtesy, but I don't recall seeing it often in the US.

My experience in the U.S. has been the complete opposite.  Yes, some drivers won't let anyone in, but eventually, absolutely.

This is why I tend to choose what is essentially the exact opposite course of action, to leave a long enough gap in front of me for multiple cars to get over.

That's just another annoying extreme.  Zipper!

Common language equivalent: let ME go first! Me! Me!! ME!!!

Ideally, no.  People should use the full capacity of the roadway and take turns at the merge point.

If anything, if you don't zipper and people in the lane to be merged into refuse to allow the merge, it's them that are saying "me first."

Zipper, as many ideas generated by modern engineers, is based on good intentions. One of intentions is more or less equal wait time for everyone, making things more or less fair. Of course that doesn't match with KREP, aka "everyone must give me the way", but whatever. Asking for some systematic thinking from the engineer is too much these days.
Point is, you are talking about utilizing concept aimed at fairness to your own advantage - and somehow feel in your full right to do so.   

[Rothman]

One common move is when someone is crossing an arterial road, but one direction of the arterial is jammed up (and it's the side the driver is entering from). The drivers in the jammed side leave a gap, and the car enters into the roadway about halfway. Eventually, the driver noses so far into the opposing (free flow) direction that someone eventually stops to let them in, even though it's not their right-of-way. This should be common courtesy, but I don't recall seeing it often in the US.

My experience in the U.S. has been the complete opposite.  Yes, some drivers won't let anyone in, but eventually, absolutely.

This is why I tend to choose what is essentially the exact opposite course of action, to leave a long enough gap in front of me for multiple cars to get over.

That's just another annoying extreme.  Zipper!

Common language equivalent: let ME go first! Me! Me!! ME!!!

Ideally, no.  People should use the full capacity of the roadway and take turns at the merge point.

If anything, if you don't zipper and people in the lane to be merged into refuse to allow the merge, it's them that are saying "me first."

Zipper, as many ideas generated by modern engineers, is based on good intentions. One of intentions is more or less equal wait time for everyone, making things more or less fair. Of course that doesn't match with KREP, aka "everyone must give me the way", but whatever. Asking for some systematic thinking from the engineer is too much these days.
Point is, you are talking about utilizing concept aimed at fairness to your own advantage - and somehow feel in your full right to do so.   

And you are taking from an immature elementary school concept of lining up for a water fountain and the little kids bickering over "cutting."

[kalvado]

One common move is when someone is crossing an arterial road, but one direction of the arterial is jammed up (and it's the side the driver is entering from). The drivers in the jammed side leave a gap, and the car enters into the roadway about halfway. Eventually, the driver noses so far into the opposing (free flow) direction that someone eventually stops to let them in, even though it's not their right-of-way. This should be common courtesy, but I don't recall seeing it often in the US.

My experience in the U.S. has been the complete opposite.  Yes, some drivers won't let anyone in, but eventually, absolutely.

This is why I tend to choose what is essentially the exact opposite course of action, to leave a long enough gap in front of me for multiple cars to get over.

That's just another annoying extreme.  Zipper!

Common language equivalent: let ME go first! Me! Me!! ME!!!

Ideally, no.  People should use the full capacity of the roadway and take turns at the merge point.

If anything, if you don't zipper and people in the lane to be merged into refuse to allow the merge, it's them that are saying "me first."

Zipper, as many ideas generated by modern engineers, is based on good intentions. One of intentions is more or less equal wait time for everyone, making things more or less fair. Of course that doesn't match with KREP, aka "everyone must give me the way", but whatever. Asking for some systematic thinking from the engineer is too much these days.
Point is, you are talking about utilizing concept aimed at fairness to your own advantage - and somehow feel in your full right to do so.   

And you are taking from an immature elementary school concept of lining up for a water fountain and the little kids bickering over "cutting."

It didn't take long.. So even you feel doing things under the color of a "zipper" concept, where it's not in full swing is wrong, but still doing it....

[Rothman]

One common move is when someone is crossing an arterial road, but one direction of the arterial is jammed up (and it's the side the driver is entering from). The drivers in the jammed side leave a gap, and the car enters into the roadway about halfway. Eventually, the driver noses so far into the opposing (free flow) direction that someone eventually stops to let them in, even though it's not their right-of-way. This should be common courtesy, but I don't recall seeing it often in the US.

My experience in the U.S. has been the complete opposite.  Yes, some drivers won't let anyone in, but eventually, absolutely.

This is why I tend to choose what is essentially the exact opposite course of action, to leave a long enough gap in front of me for multiple cars to get over.

That's just another annoying extreme.  Zipper!

Common language equivalent: let ME go first! Me! Me!! ME!!!

Ideally, no.  People should use the full capacity of the roadway and take turns at the merge point.

If anything, if you don't zipper and people in the lane to be merged into refuse to allow the merge, it's them that are saying "me first."

Zipper, as many ideas generated by modern engineers, is based on good intentions. One of intentions is more or less equal wait time for everyone, making things more or less fair. Of course that doesn't match with KREP, aka "everyone must give me the way", but whatever. Asking for some systematic thinking from the engineer is too much these days.
Point is, you are talking about utilizing concept aimed at fairness to your own advantage - and somehow feel in your full right to do so.   

And you are taking from an immature elementary school concept of lining up for a water fountain and the little kids bickering over "cutting."

It didn't take long.. So even you feel doing things under the color of a "zipper" concept, where it's not in full swing is wrong, but still doing it....

Try reading what I said.

[webny99]

you are talking about utilizing concept aimed at fairness to your own advantage - and somehow feel in your full right to do so. 

The zipper concept has been in widespread use in work zones for well over a decade now. Everyone on the road should know what it is and how it works. The fact that so many drivers still fail to use it resulting in significantly longer queue lengths in the open lane is baffling, but it doesn't mean that anyone who opts to stay in the closing lane until the merge point is at fault. Every driver has the same opportunity to use either lane. If they insist on using the lane that remains open for miles in advance of the closure, enduring longer wait times are a consequence of their own decision and no one's fault but their own.

[kalvado]

you are talking about utilizing concept aimed at fairness to your own advantage - and somehow feel in your full right to do so.

The zipper concept has been in widespread use in work zones for well over a decade now. Everyone on the road should know what it is and how it works. The fact that so many drivers still fail to use it resulting in significantly longer queue lengths in the open lane is baffling, but it doesn't mean that anyone who opts to stay in the closing lane until the merge point is at fault. Every driver has the same opportunity to use either lane. If they insist on using the lane that remains open for miles in advance of the closure, enduring longer wait times are a consequence of their own decision and no one's fault but their own.

Zipper concept is like roundabouts - usable with pretty limited scope. Unlike roundabouts , it has limited official acceptance, and does not match with existing legal framework.
But it works for certain mindsets, since it can easily be turned to one's advantage at everyone else's cost.

[webny99]

Zipper concept is like roundabouts - usable with pretty limited scope. Unlike roundabouts , it has limited official acceptance, and does not match with existing legal framework.

I certainly wouldn't call active promotion by 30+ state DOT's "limited acceptance". And I have no idea what legal framework has anything to do with it but I know it's not anything safety-related given the numerous safety benefits of the zipper merge.

But it works for certain mindsets, since it can easily be turned to one's advantage at everyone else's cost.

As already stated, it's only at cost to others if they choose it to be so. If the average driver made better, more informed choices, there would no longer be an advantage for those zippering, since the queues would be equal length.

[kalvado]

Zipper concept is like roundabouts - usable with pretty limited scope. Unlike roundabouts , it has limited official acceptance, and does not match with existing legal framework.

I certainly wouldn't call active promotion by 30+ state DOT's "limited acceptance". And I have no idea what legal framework has anything to do with it but I know it's not anything safety-related given the numerous safety benefits of the zipper merge.

But it works for certain mindsets, since it can easily be turned to one's advantage at everyone else's cost.

As already stated, it's only at cost to others if they choose it to be so. If the average driver made better, more informed choices, there would no longer be an advantage for those zippering, since the queues would be equal length.

So what are the safety benefits here? Same as quantifiable safety benefits of exit renumbering?

[vdeane]

And I have no idea what legal framework has anything to do with it but I know it's not anything safety-related given the numerous safety benefits of the zipper merge.

My best guess would be something along the lines of "it violates keep right except to pass".

So what are the safety benefits here? Same as quantifiable safety benefits of exit renumbering?

I wonder if @webny99 meant to say efficiency benefits, but having less congestion would reduce congestion-caused crashes.

[webny99]

And I have no idea what legal framework has anything to do with it but I know it's not anything safety-related given the numerous safety benefits of the zipper merge.

My best guess would be something along the lines of "it violates keep right except to pass".

Which would be ironic because KRETP actually is being adhered to when people don't zipper properly (at least for left lane closures). But more importantly, KRETP is no longer a top priority once the roadway becomes congested.

So what are the safety benefits here? Same as quantifiable safety benefits of exit renumbering?

I wonder if @webny99 meant to say efficiency benefits, but having less congestion would reduce congestion-caused crashes.

I did mean safety, though the effiency benefits are numerous too. Less congestion and shorter backups contributing to fewer crashes and less hard braking is a big one, but also a lower speed differential between the lanes and less road rage stemming from early merging issues.

[Scott5114]

I certainly wouldn't call active promotion by 30+ state DOT's "limited acceptance".

That's still 20 states (and several million people) who have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you say "zipper merge".

I don't zipper because I don't trust anyone else to do so, and usually I'm right not to.

My best guess would be something along the lines of "it violates keep right except to pass".

Or that you can't enforce a zipper merge unless there's actually a state law spelling out what one is, how it works, and what the penalties are for noncompliance.

[Rothman]

Just zipper because it's the right thing to do.

[Max Rockatansky]

90% of the time I stick with the lane is ending so I can take advantage of passing a bunch of people who get over early.  I don't particularly care if someone finds my proper use of a zipper merge to be rude.

[Scott5114]

Just zipper because it's the right thing to do.

Great way to get shot.

[Max Rockatansky]

Has anyone actually ever been shot at?  I've had three knives and pair of brass knuckles pulled on me at work.  Those all involved people who were actively committing crimes and three had felony warrants.  I'm not saying that it "never" has happened, but being shot at due to partaking in a zipper merge seems high improbable.

[Rothman]

I've been flipped off -- for very strange reasons, mostly (e.g., just passing someone) -- but never had a gun pulled on me.

[Max Rockatansky]

Someone should ask Lord Carhorn if he's been shot at while engaging in Flat Illinois road rage.  If that guy can't piss someone off enough for that to happen, it won't for anyone on this forum.

[jeffandnicole]

I certainly wouldn't call active promotion by 30+ state DOT's "limited acceptance".

That's still 20 states (and several million people) who have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you say "zipper merge".

I don't zipper because I don't trust anyone else to do so, and usually I'm right not to.

Just because they're in a state where they don't promote zipper merging doesn't mean they've never heard of it. 

So you've never merged into another lane between 2 vehicles, or had someone pull in front or behind you?  That's a zipper merge.  Vegas has some decent traffic.  I'm sure you've merged between two cars at some point.

Now, maybe you've done it a mile back from where the lane ended, but you still zippered.  You just did it early.

[webny99]

I certainly wouldn't call active promotion by 30+ state DOT's "limited acceptance".

That's still 20 states (and several million people) who have no idea what the hell you're talking about when you say "zipper merge".

To be clear, 30 is a very rough estimate. I said 30+ because I read some reporting that put the number at 33, and I wouldn't be surprised if it's higher. Either way, the zipper merge simply *not being actively promoted by a state DOT* doesn't nullify the concept or its purpose, nor does it mean it's something drivers shouldn't be aware of. It's been used in many other countries for decades, too, so it's not unique to the states promoting it.

I don't zipper because I don't trust anyone else to do so, and usually I'm right not to.

Serious question, how do you know if you're right to or not?

If you simply don't want to be the only one using the closing lane for miles and risk angering someone by cutting in, I totally respect that, but I also believe that only applies in free flowing traffic conditions. If there's an existing backup, there will be other drivers willing to use either lane until the merge point, and those that aren't are almost exclusively just lacking awareness rather than trying to be polite.

Or that you can't enforce a zipper merge unless there's actually a state law spelling out what one is, how it works, and what the penalties are for noncompliance.

I don't think state lawmakers or anyone else are really "enforcing" a zipper merge (other than the guy TheHighwayMan3561 mentioned upthread). I personally support early merging when practical if traffic is moving at or above speed but using both lanes to the merge point when there's congestion. That's what I'm going to do regardless, and it's baffling to me if others choose not to do the same, but I certainly don't want to force my approach on anyone, and won't stop them if they want to actively choose longer delays instead (as long as they don't complain about the delays they helped create).

It would actually be more helpful to me personally not to promote the zipper merge publicly, because less awareness means less people using it which means more time savings for those that do. Yet I am promoting it because I genuinely believe its use promotes safety and efficiency and reduces congestion and road rage, and I want to help other drivers see and understand those factors so they can benefit from them as well.

[GaryV]

I passed signs on I-75 in Michigan that said something to the effect of, "Use both lanes when traffic is backed up." I guess that means zipper? Never saw that in Michigan before.

[epzik8]

I don't zipper because I don't trust anyone else to do so, and usually I'm right not to.

I generally consider zipper merging to be for idiots.

[1995hoo]

Back in 2017, we were on our way home from St. Louis when I saw this very nice sign on I-70 near Terre Haute. Naturally, a lot of idiots apparently couldn't read and insisted on getting over a mile or two in advance even in heavy traffic.

[webny99]

I don't zipper because I don't trust anyone else to do so, and usually I'm right not to.

I generally consider zipper merging to be for idiots.

You're not going to get away with that without at least explaining why.