Remove yield signs from freeway ramps

[jakeroot]

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:

[yand]

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.

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.

[jakeroot]

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

[jeffandnicole]

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.

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.

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.

[doorknob60]

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).


GSV Link
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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[kalvado]

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.

[webny99]

If every freeway entrance had acceleration lanes (as should be the case), this thread would not need to exist.

[kalvado]

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)

[Brandon]

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.

[kphoger]

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

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.

[Amtrakprod]

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

[Amtrakprod]

It looks like this:


iPhone

[webny99]

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

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.

[yand]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Your choice, but do it in a non-obstructive way.

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.

[webny99]

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.

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.

[yand]

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.

[vdeane]

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.

[kalvado]

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..

[vdeane]

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.

[1995hoo]

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

....

[signalman]

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

....

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.

[jakeroot]

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.

[webny99]

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

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 

Let me be clear at the outset:

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.

[yand]

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

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 

Let me be clear at the outset:

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.