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

201–209 of 209 posts

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

#201

Post by allworknoplay »

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: ____________________…

Yes! #1 is what I was thinking too. Remove the dominance/subordination from the merging and it's obvious what one is supposed to do -- zipper right in one at a time.

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

#202

Post by nitid_name »

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…

I tend to start pacing for the zipper merge when I'm (reasonably) close to the end of the zipper. This way, I'm showing I am willing to wait while simultaneously giving myself the option of skipping forward past any particular territorial driver. When I slow down the merging lane to a similar speed as the non-merging lane, I can typically see the zipper start to form behind me when I check my mirrors.

In the same way one or two bad drivers can destroy a lane or two of functional traffic flow, a good driver can create a lane (or two) of harmony.

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

#203

Post by allworknoplay »

peeters wrote: post #81
nardi wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Option 1 leads to "no, after you " behavior, steers two cars directly at each other, and probably would be a disaster.

Speaking about educating drivers, I wish we could just kill that mentality once and for all. It drives me crazy when someone obviously beats me to a stop sign, then waves me through as though they're doing me a favor. No my friend, you're just making it slower for both of us by not following the established rules of the road. Thankfully my city is replacing as many stop signs as possible with traffic circles, where y…

This is the worst when you're on a bike -- the car tries to be nice and let you go, but you can't assume that they're not going to zip out and kill you if you do, so everyone just fucking sits and waits, when you could have just zipped through behind them. It's insane.

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

#204

Post by Fishkins »

wfjackson wrote: post #130
morsch wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

I wonder if there's an option 3, install a mobile traffic light that allows one lane only at one time, in sequences of one minute or so each, i.e Alternating red and green lights, so that there is no need for merging. This way there's no slowdown caused by the merging, I feel that this method may actually make it faster overall. ____________________________________________ Green _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __________________…

The picture Negitivefrags posted shows a similar setup currently in use in New Zealand (although it's a permanent merge instead of temporary construction)

http://i.imgur.com/AtaDOGX.jpg

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

#205

Post by jameshart »

bsder wrote: post #195
teamonkey wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's so much about being smaller, more that there is only one set of rules for the whole country and those rules are more strongly enforced. Also, from what I can tell, the driving exam is far more rigorous in the UK.

Speeds in the UK are way slower than the US, and cars are way more expensive to run in the UK than the US. Consequently, everybody and their dog doesn't expect to drive a car in the UK.

Demonstrably and comically false (except on the running costs front - you're spot on there). Not only are UK motorway speed limits 70mph (and traffic speeds higher still), 70mph is also the limit on most dual carriageways, and major undivided roads have a 60mph limit. In the US you'll rarely find a road with no central divider with a limit above 45, and only major multilane highways go to 65 and higher limits (depending on state).

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

#206

Post by peeters »

tedsanders wrote: post #134
peeters wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's provably optimal in flowing traffic as well. However, the "merge point" is variable depending on traffic speed. Obviously when you're going 100 km/h, the ideal merge point is significantly farther back than when it's stop and go. Nobody is saying you should wait until you're 20 feet from the barrier and then swerve into the other lane. But it's not like that's unique to this situation.

Zipper merge is synonymous with late merge: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipper_merge If you move the merge point back, then by definition it becomes an early merge, right? I don't understand your disagreement with what seems like a totally reasonable statement by Justin.

My point is that what constitutes "late" is a function of the speed of traffic.

If you define "late" as "the latest point at which you can safely merge without causing negative traffic reactions (e.g. by forcing someone to brake)" then zipper/late merging is better than "moving over as soon as you can", even in light traffic.

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

#207

Post by joshwa »

dubfan wrote: post #92
joshwa wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turn-only lanes (using a turn-only lane to go straight) is where I see the worst cheater/vigilante behavior. (It's always BMW's who do it, too... ) Those turn-only lanes are just wasted capacity that could be used to carry more traffic into a zipper merge. I'm guessing that at some peak hour the turn lane has utility, but at reverse-peak they should be able to switch to a regular lane leading to a merge point.

Zipper merging inside an intersection will almost certainly lead to gridlock due to incomplete mergers before the light changes.

Referring to exit-only lanes on highways, not signaled intersections.

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

#208

Post by [deleted] »

dubfan wrote: post #92
joshwa wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turn-only lanes (using a turn-only lane to go straight) is where I see the worst cheater/vigilante behavior. (It's always BMW's who do it, too... ) Those turn-only lanes are just wasted capacity that could be used to carry more traffic into a zipper merge. I'm guessing that at some peak hour the turn lane has utility, but at reverse-peak they should be able to switch to a regular lane leading to a merge point.

Zipper merging inside an intersection will almost certainly lead to gridlock due to incomplete mergers before the light changes.

[deleted]

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

#209

Post by rcthompson »

Klinky wrote: post #55
rcthompson wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If enough people are doing zipper merging, then there is no way to cut in line, because both lanes are equally backed up. Then once people get to the merge point, they won't have any sense of unfairness because the other lane was waiting just as long, so there will be less impetus for "vigilantes" to mess things up. I'm not saying there will be no problems, but I don't think that more zipper merging will automaticall…

The question then is, do enough people zipper merge, and do people really have a proper understanding of fairness? A lot of the driving population may not be acting rationally, or even have enough awareness to comprehend the big the picture. Cars put people into their own bubble, where quite oftenly only their needs are being considered.

Yes, of course many drivers will always try to cheat no matter what, but many more will cheat if they feel they have been wronged. My point is that the latter subset would be eliminated if most people used zipper merging.
Post reply on HN