Molly wrote:The only people I absolutely REFUSE to let merge in front of me are the douches who know that up ahead the left/right/whatever lane in closed; yet they will drive in that lane until it ends and expect those of us who have patiently waited in traffic to let them merge in. FU!!!!!!
Ahem... driving until the end of the lane increases highway "bandwidth" and would lower everyone's total traffic time if you allowed them to merge effortlessly.
vinsanity wrote:
And people need to learn how to use speed control.
aka "cruise control"??
I was distracted. yes.
And Theo's right. If an on-ramp is coming and you can avoid it, why be in the right lane?
I have this same problem where 65 N meets 70 W in Indy. The left lane of 70 tries to jump over a lane (way earlier than they need to, cause only the right lane exits a mile down the road), and 65 N right lane all try to jump over to the 70 W lanes to exit.
I almost come to a complete stop every day on this. Sometimes I blow past and have to cut over 4 lanes of traffic in 1/2 mile. Ironically this is sometimes easier.
Molly wrote:The only people I absolutely REFUSE to let merge in front of me are the douches who know that up ahead the left/right/whatever lane in closed; yet they will drive in that lane until it ends and expect those of us who have patiently waited in traffic to let them merge in. FU!!!!!!
Ahem... driving until the end of the lane increases highway "bandwidth" and would lower everyone's total traffic time if you allowed them to merge effortlessly.
Traffic is caused by human error.
And I think if everyone knows that 4 lanes are going to become 3 lanes those 3 lanes will move faster if everyone merges effortlessly before the end. But that's just me. I could be wrong. It has been known to happen
Molly wrote:The only people I absolutely REFUSE to let merge in front of me are the douches who know that up ahead the left/right/whatever lane in closed; yet they will drive in that lane until it ends and expect those of us who have patiently waited in traffic to let them merge in. FU!!!!!!
Ahem... driving until the end of the lane increases highway "bandwidth" and would lower everyone's total traffic time if you allowed them to merge effortlessly.
Traffic is caused by human error.
Yes that would work in a perfect world where traffic doesn't bottleneck from lane closure. But once there's slowdown at the part where the lane closes, it would be much more effecient for the vehicles to get over while there's still open spaces in the lanes than wait until everyone is bumper-to-bumper to try to get over.
It's funny you mention bandwidth to describe how getting into the lane would be more efficient. In one of the computer classes I took in college the teacher used highways and lane closures as an illustration of how networks can be bottlenecked by slow routers and the like. Which is basically the exact opposite of how you're using it.
Molly wrote:The only people I absolutely REFUSE to let merge in front of me are the douches who know that up ahead the left/right/whatever lane in closed; yet they will drive in that lane until it ends and expect those of us who have patiently waited in traffic to let them merge in. FU!!!!!!
Ahem... driving until the end of the lane increases highway "bandwidth" and would lower everyone's total traffic time if you allowed them to merge effortlessly.
Traffic is caused by human error.
Yes that would work in a perfect world where traffic doesn't bottleneck from lane closure. But once there's slowdown at the part where the lane closes, it would be much more effecient for the vehicles to get over while there's still open spaces in the lanes than wait until everyone is bumper-to-bumper to try to get over.
It's funny you mention bandwidth to describe how getting into the lane would be more efficient. In one of the computer classes I took in college the teacher used highways and lane closures as an illustration of how networks can be bottlenecked by slow routers and the like. Which is basically the exact opposite of how you're using it.
Your teacher is dumb and I am smart. It's not funny, it's a damn shame.
Molly wrote:The only people I absolutely REFUSE to let merge in front of me are the douches who know that up ahead the left/right/whatever lane in closed; yet they will drive in that lane until it ends and expect those of us who have patiently waited in traffic to let them merge in. FU!!!!!!
Ahem... driving until the end of the lane increases highway "bandwidth" and would lower everyone's total traffic time if you allowed them to merge effortlessly.
Traffic is caused by human error.
Yes that would work in a perfect world where traffic doesn't bottleneck from lane closure. But once there's slowdown at the part where the lane closes, it would be much more effecient for the vehicles to get over while there's still open spaces in the lanes than wait until everyone is bumper-to-bumper to try to get over.
It's funny you mention bandwidth to describe how getting into the lane would be more efficient. In one of the computer classes I took in college the teacher used highways and lane closures as an illustration of how networks can be bottlenecked by slow routers and the like. Which is basically the exact opposite of how you're using it.
Your teacher is dumb and I am smart. It's not funny, it's a damn shame.
Molly wrote:The only people I absolutely REFUSE to let merge in front of me are the douches who know that up ahead the left/right/whatever lane in closed; yet they will drive in that lane until it ends and expect those of us who have patiently waited in traffic to let them merge in. FU!!!!!!
Ahem... driving until the end of the lane increases highway "bandwidth" and would lower everyone's total traffic time if you allowed them to merge effortlessly.
Traffic is caused by human error.
Yes that would work in a perfect world where traffic doesn't bottleneck from lane closure. But once there's slowdown at the part where the lane closes, it would be much more effecient for the vehicles to get over while there's still open spaces in the lanes than wait until everyone is bumper-to-bumper to try to get over.
It's funny you mention bandwidth to describe how getting into the lane would be more efficient. In one of the computer classes I took in college the teacher used highways and lane closures as an illustration of how networks can be bottlenecked by slow routers and the like. Which is basically the exact opposite of how you're using it.
Your teacher is dumb and I am smart. It's not funny, it's a damn shame.
Molly wrote:The only people I absolutely REFUSE to let merge in front of me are the douches who know that up ahead the left/right/whatever lane in closed; yet they will drive in that lane until it ends and expect those of us who have patiently waited in traffic to let them merge in. FU!!!!!!
Ahem... driving until the end of the lane increases highway "bandwidth" and would lower everyone's total traffic time if you allowed them to merge effortlessly.
Traffic is caused by human error.
In the case of closed lanes, I'm more with Molly. However, on my drive home, there's an exit(my exit) that many people merge onto, but that merge-off lane is also the merge-on lane for another road, which leaves it backed up for the better part of a mile with idiots who are slowing near a stop with a car length in front of them because they know it's coming. I don't feel bad about blowing past them and merging as late as possible.
Molly wrote:The only people I absolutely REFUSE to let merge in front of me are the douches who know that up ahead the left/right/whatever lane in closed; yet they will drive in that lane until it ends and expect those of us who have patiently waited in traffic to let them merge in. FU!!!!!!
Ahem... driving until the end of the lane increases highway "bandwidth" and would lower everyone's total traffic time if you allowed them to merge effortlessly.
Traffic is caused by human error.
I've had a number of arguments about this issue. I agree that it would be a better system if everyone drove right up to the lane closure and then merged because it makes more efficient use of the road, and it would eliminate the conflict with "cheaters" (though it doesn't actually increase bandwidth which is still limited by the narrow spot). The problem is the American driving convention which says you are supposed get out of a closing lane as soon as you can. As long as that is the (badly chosen) convention, not merging is just like cutting in line. You can try to justify it to yourself as some kind of altruistic act, but really it's just taking personal advantage at the cost of others, hence cheating.
I understand that some other countries use a "zipper" system where when a lane closes, you drive up to the end and then alternating cars from each lane move on. That would make a lot more sense.
