Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 209 posts

Re: Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

#111

Post by tedsanders »

pwenzel wrote: post #8

As a driver in the Twin Cities area, I can back the stereotype that Minnesotans don't know how to zipper. It speaks so truly of the Minnesota condition. People begin often merge far too early, and get offended when folks like myself "budge" at the front of the line. Learn to zipper, darn it! Edit: This TPT parody, How to Talk Minnesotan, shows how to drive in Minnesota (scrub to 11:58): http://video.tpt.org/video/236…

If you are offending people, you're likely performing the zipper merge incorrectly.

The point of the zipper merge is maximize efficiency and safety by matching the speeds of the two lanes.

The wrong way to zipper merge is to drive past the other lane and merge at the end.

The correct way to zipper merge is to drive at the speed of the nearby lane and merge at the end.

When you zipper merge correctly, almost no one gets upset.

Re: Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

#112

Post by awj »

malandrew wrote: post #35

That video explanation made no sense to me. Basically the "interface" presented to the drivers has not changed, so why would drivers deviate from how they currently merge? Because the government said so? I don't see this working. However there are two solutions that could promote zipper merging: (1) Force both lanes to the center before moving that center lane to the side that is available ahead: ____________________…

> so that those in the continuing lane feel morally obligated to let those queued up in.

I'm pretty well convinced that we'd never hit critical mass of drivers that feel morally obligated to even moderately inconvenience themselves to benefit the merging of others. That merge pattern is a recipe for stalled traffic in the right hand lane.

First one seems workable, though.

Re: Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

#114

Post by bpdenimy »

So Negitivefrags is probably right that the best top-down way to get this to happen is to place signage. But it's sort of fun to think of the best bottom-up way to get this to happen, assuming your local government isn't putting up signs.

For example, I love going a constant speed in start-stop traffic (letting gaps appear ahead of me then closing them as traffic stops) so as to smooth out the ride of everyone behind me.

So what's the optimal way to get this behavior to spread? It's probably not just to gun it to the front of the line and yell 'zipper!', everyone just thinks you're an asshole.

VikingCoder suggests "If you want to show people how it's done, you go the same speed as the cars next to you in the open lane, and zipper merge at the end." I love it, because it's really awkward, and people will note it enough to maybe think through what's happening, what your logic is.

But I dunno, maybe there's something else more clever out there, too.

Re: Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

#115

Post by jamesbritt »

john_b wrote: post #59
notacoward wrote: post #27

Zipper merging works great as long as everyone on both sides is willing to alternate (or if strong enforcement requires them to do so). Otherwise, letting "late mergers" scream past fifty "early mergers" often creates a situation worse than simple early merge. There's plenty of blame to go around. * The vast majority of the people blasting down the late-merge lane clearly have no interest in alternating or merging in…

> "Without enforcing proper merge behavior on both sides, zipper merge just becomes a big Prisoners' Dilemma game with a few defectors screwing all of the cooperators." Except unlike prisoner's dilemma, it's not a zero (or negative) sum game. The entire traffic flow can speed up if zipper merging is done. The "late mergers" don't have to risk losing their game of "chicken" while the "vigilantes" don't have to deal wi…

[1] Another example is the special breed of driver who stops the traffic flow on a major road (which has the right of way) to let someone on a minor cross road or parking lot exit onto the major road, thus inconveniencing everyone behind them for the self satisfaction of having helped the one person they can see.

This is similar to the person on a grocery checkout line who lets someone cut in front of them; they are also putting that person ahead of every other person behind them the line.

It's an interesting situation; people feel they are doing the right thing yet apparently never stop to think how they are imposing their decision on others.

There's a blind-spot of sorts regarding the larger effects of their actions.

Re: Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

#116

Post by joezydeco »

thirdstation wrote: post #48
malandrew wrote: post #35

That video explanation made no sense to me. Basically the "interface" presented to the drivers has not changed, so why would drivers deviate from how they currently merge? Because the government said so? I don't see this working. However there are two solutions that could promote zipper merging: (1) Force both lanes to the center before moving that center lane to the side that is available ahead: ____________________…

Option 2 physically walls off the Late Mergers in addition to mentally (in the minds of the Free Laners), making them easier to ignore. I like option 1 because it forces everyone to move.

Yeah, option 2 would lead to someone hestitating/stopping in that lower lane. Then that whole lane is stopped because the front driver is too afraid to merge into moving traffic, and the moving traffic is going too fast to stop and let a lower lane driver in.

Re: Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

#117

Post by bbarn »

malandrew wrote: post #35

That video explanation made no sense to me. Basically the "interface" presented to the drivers has not changed, so why would drivers deviate from how they currently merge? Because the government said so? I don't see this working. However there are two solutions that could promote zipper merging: (1) Force both lanes to the center before moving that center lane to the side that is available ahead: ____________________…

Option 1 sounds great in theory, but given that most merges are the result of temporary lane closures, completely impractical (since road work usually goes one lane at a time)

Re: Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

#118

Post by morsch »

malandrew wrote: post #35

That video explanation made no sense to me. Basically the "interface" presented to the drivers has not changed, so why would drivers deviate from how they currently merge? Because the government said so? I don't see this working. However there are two solutions that could promote zipper merging: (1) Force both lanes to the center before moving that center lane to the side that is available ahead: ____________________…

Good thinking. Apparently your option 2 was implemented (and considered an innovation) around where I live. Here's a picture from 2007: http://www.strassen.nrw.de/_down/pi-070322-03.jpg I don't know if they're still doing it. (Late merging has long been the default in Europe and is taught in driver's ed. However people seem to do it more reliably when reminded of the practice.)

Re: Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

#119

Post by joelcollinsdc »

Negitivefrags wrote: post #53
malandrew wrote: post #35

That video explanation made no sense to me. Basically the "interface" presented to the drivers has not changed, so why would drivers deviate from how they currently merge? Because the government said so? I don't see this working. However there are two solutions that could promote zipper merging: (1) Force both lanes to the center before moving that center lane to the side that is available ahead: ____________________…

In New Zealand we just have signs like this all over the place: http://i.imgur.com/AtaDOGX.jpg

Its pedantic, but I think this is sublty different than what is being dicussed here. All over the US, there are situations where 2 lanes converge to 1 and drivers "take turns" merging. But I think the scenario that is being discussed is a little different, where there is 1 "working" lane and one "closed" lane, the thought process of drivers in the lane that they know is 'closed' up ahead is to merge early.

I wonder if cultures where queueing (like, in the grocery store) is not as common as in the US have this problem? I suspect not.

Re: Washington, Minnesota officially endorse a “safer, faster” traffic merge

#120

Post by mbrameld »

bbarn wrote: post #117
malandrew wrote: post #35

That video explanation made no sense to me. Basically the "interface" presented to the drivers has not changed, so why would drivers deviate from how they currently merge? Because the government said so? I don't see this working. However there are two solutions that could promote zipper merging: (1) Force both lanes to the center before moving that center lane to the side that is available ahead: ____________________…

Option 1 sounds great in theory, but given that most merges are the result of temporary lane closures, completely impractical (since road work usually goes one lane at a time)

How is it any more impractical than how temporary lane closures are currently done? It can still be done with cones or barrels and the end result is exactly the same.
Post reply on HN