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

171–180 of 209 posts

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

#171

Post by simias »

tedsanders wrote: post #153
QuiteMouse wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The zip line is always free though, so obviously you're going to be going faster then the other lane that is backed up with traffic.

Again, the correct way to zipper merge is to reduce your speed to the traffic beside you and then merge at the end. The whole reason zipper merging is efficient and safe is that both lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, making merging quick and easy. If you zoom past the other lane of traffic, you are actually worse than the early mergers in terms of safety and efficiency. Edit: For those of you downvoting…

You need to have the same speed at the point of merging, not while you're just driving 1km of empty lane leading to the merge point. It would be very silly to drive at a snail pace in an empty lane for no reason. You just have to slow down to the other lane's pace when reaching the merge point.

What would be the point of matching speed with the other lane when you're not actually about to merge?

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

#172

Post by nhaehnle »

tedsanders wrote: post #168
nhaehnle wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

dusing is probably talking about the (rather common in some places) situation where one lane has half a kilometer of slow-to-standing vehicles, while the other lane is entirely free. In this situation, of course you're going to pass those other cars (please do so slowly and carefully if you pass them on the right). It would be ridiculous to slow to a standstill with half a kilometer of empty road ahead of you. When z…

Thank you for your charitable interpretation of my comment, but in fact I don't think it is ridiculous to drive slowly in the right lane. I really do think that's the correct strategy. Even if the second lane is free, it's safer and more efficient to match speeds with the first lane. And shouldn't we take actions that maximize safety and efficiency? Note that there is no global gain from speeding down the right lane,…

Hmm, probably we don't disagree by much anyway. Perhaps it's clearer if we put some numbers to it: Suppose that the occupied lane is doing stop-and-go (due to the natural waves occurring in traffic), with a maximum speed of 20km/h.

What should the speed be for somebody in the unoccupied lane? Certainly 80km/h is far too much. On the other hand, it also doesn't make sense (IMHO) to come to a complete stop in the free lane just because cars in the occupied lane have to stop. I feel that a steady 30km/h is a good compromise.

Does that sound reasonable to you?

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

#173

Post by zo1 »

ericcumbee wrote: post #98
dubfan wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Thankfully my city is replacing as many stop signs as possible with traffic circles, where you'd have to be a complete idiot to yield to someone who got there after you. In Seattle, we have traffic circles in many of our residential neighborhoods. People still do this here. Another common thing is people taking lefts by just driving on the left side of the circle (I've had people honk at me for taking lefts the cor…

we have a couple around here near campus. The problem is shockingly few people know how to behave in a traffic circle.

We have the same problem. Unfortunately, it's compounded by the fact that the local municipality here likes creating very small traffic circles with a small bump in the middle. The end result is that people end up treating them like 4-way stops and yield as such.

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

#174

Post by sjwright »

nhaehnle wrote: post #162
chrisseaton wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"few people know how to behave in a traffic circle" Tell them this: imagine a big circular road. Then imagine other roads joining it with T junctions. Then imagine the road is one-way. Finally just shrink the road in your head. That's all it is!

There's one more rule: traffic on the circular road has priority.

That rule already applies. It's no different on a circular road or roundabout; traffic already on a road has priority over traffic turning onto it.

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

#175

Post by zo1 »

MagicWishMonkey wrote: post #93
ericHosick wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zipper merging is the optimal solution. People early merge because they think it is the optimal/moral/better/'done my part' solution. If everyone knew about zipper merging there would be no early mergers (and 'late mergers' don't exist within the context of zipper merging).

The problem is most people don't know how to properly zipper merge, so pretending that everything would be hunky dory as long as people play by a set of rules that you know they aren't likely to play by is an exercise in futility.

Well, quite a lot of traffic is already regulated by people "playing by a set of rules", and that ends up being hunky dory for the most part. I think the reason why this one is the exception is that it's quite feasible for people to "fight back" to those they perceive as abusers.

The real problem is accountability. There is none of it(as cops can't be everywhere, all the time) so people end up exercising what little power they do have in order to punish those they view as the abusers.

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

#176

Post by boyaka »

simias wrote: post #171
tedsanders wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, the correct way to zipper merge is to reduce your speed to the traffic beside you and then merge at the end. The whole reason zipper merging is efficient and safe is that both lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, making merging quick and easy. If you zoom past the other lane of traffic, you are actually worse than the early mergers in terms of safety and efficiency. Edit: For those of you downvoting…

You need to have the same speed at the point of merging, not while you're just driving 1km of empty lane leading to the merge point. It would be very silly to drive at a snail pace in an empty lane for no reason. You just have to slow down to the other lane's pace when reaching the merge point. What would be the point of matching speed with the other lane when you're not actually about to merge?

His reasoning is safety, because it's supposedly (and I guess understandably...) unsafe for cars to be moving at very different speeds next to each other. I assume what people are afraid of (or what actually happens) is that people in the lane moving slower might drift/shift into the lane moving faster and cause a collision. When this happens while both lanes are moving at similar speeds both cars are more capable of avoiding it.

I've been there. I've been in the backed up lane in traffic with the lane next to me moving much faster, near the speed limit. I often try to get into the fast moving lane and it is a bit scary because it can be difficult to see far back enough to get into the lane without cutting somebody off. I still believe it is the fault of the people in the slower lane for being there though, and it is their responsibility to stay in that lane or find a safe opening to get to the next lane. If I see a bunch of stubborn early mergers, I will assume that is where they want to be and I will drive past them like a bunch the bunch of parked cars they are. But I will indeed not necessarily drive 80+ mph and I will pay close attention to the movements of the cars.

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

#177

Post by buro9 »

This sounds like Italian driving.

If you haven't driven in Italy, expect zero braking during merges. I really do mean zero.

Trucks will move over (at speed), cars will move over (at speed). The "zipper" action is seamless and fluid, even when the vehicles are temporarily extremely close to each other.

Just look down the road, see a merge may happen. If you are a truck move over, if you are a car you may need to accelerate to move over.

The first time you experience this it looks and feels scary, especially as people merge with only 50cm-1m between vehicles. But once you're used to it you realise that you virtually never slow down and merges are really quick and easy.

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

#178

Post by nhaehnle »

sjwright wrote: post #174
nhaehnle wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one more rule: traffic on the circular road has priority.

That rule already applies. It's no different on a circular road or roundabout; traffic already on a road has priority over traffic turning onto it.

"Traffic already on a road" is a concept that does not apply in this scenario, as all traffic is already on a road in all cases. There is no a priori way to distinguish between the circular road and the roads leading towards it.

In countries where you drive on the right, I believe the typical default rule is that traffic coming from the right has priority. In roundabouts, this would mean that traffic on the roundabout must wait for those joining it. However, the rule is reversed for roundabouts. (This definitely applies to Germany, and I suspect that it applies in most other countries as well.)

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

#179

Post by watwut »

sjwright wrote: post #174
nhaehnle wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's one more rule: traffic on the circular road has priority.

That rule already applies. It's no different on a circular road or roundabout; traffic already on a road has priority over traffic turning onto it.

I guess that depends where you live. That thing is intersection like any other and the one on the right has a priority. So, unless there is a sign, the car about to enter the circular road should go first. And yes, all roundabouts have signs in here.

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

#180

Post by JeanMertz »

joelcollinsdc wrote: post #119
Negitivefrags wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

I live in the Netherlands, but drive through Belgium when driving home from work.

There is one area where a permanent two-lane road merges into a single lane. The funny thing is that (mostly) Belgians never use the second (left) lane that eventually merges into the single right lane.

This always seems stupid to me, because it increases the length of the traffic jam so much, that the traffic jam goes all the way over a roundabout, causing stops for all drivers, even the ones not going in the same direction as us.

The worst thing is, whenever I use the left lane - which I do all the time (and in return, pass 60 cars waiting in line), people sometimes get so angry that I've had two trucks in the past few months hitting the gas and blocking the left lane so no one can pass anymore.

Crazy people...

Last month a new sign was installed along the road "Please use both lanes, drive all the way to the front and THEN start merging". Even now, people still choose to wait in line at the right lane. It is as if people feel guilty when they see a whole lane being empty and available to drive on.

Post reply on HN