61–70 of 186 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
aww hell no. I'd be terrified of merging into that lane with no highway divider between me and oncoming traffic. Small two lane highways are bad enough! :P
There are less terrifying, less dynamic alternatives: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrier_transfer_machine
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is forcing you to stay in the congested lane. It was your choice and you have no reason to think everyone else has to do the same. If it's a legal lane, then drive in it.
That's fine if you can safely merge into the exit lane without slowing down traffic in the non-exit lane. Here's when it's not OK: cars in the exit lane are traveling at 2mph. You drive up next to the line, slow down from 55mph to 2mph and wait with your blinker on for someone to let you in. Now you've slowed a second 55mph lane down to 2mph, blocking thru traffic and creating a dangerous stoppage in the non-exit lan…
You're right, it's a major dick move. It's reckless and endangering; police should treat it accordingly.
That was the clearest explanation of traffic I've come across. I'm inclined to buy into it (often it seems no one knows what they're talking about when it comes to traffic). It also runs counter to what is commonly said about traffic jams. Most people focus on restoring smooth flow by doing things such as driving really slow to create space in front of you. This guy makes the case that "flow" is not really the import…
In interstate travel I have noticed the increasing frequency of the "two trucks" maneuver, in which a big rig driven by someone philosophically opposed to your habit will drive in the "closed ahead" lane directly alongside another big rig in the "open but crawling" lane. Once the two trucks near the point of obstruction, the "open" driver is happy to let the "closed" one merge in, and there is no merging at the point of obstruction, which is both a safety and traffic-flow win.
I contend that the two truckers have done more to speed actual traffic flow (i.e. from a point before the obstacle to a point after it) than any number of assholes have. While at the beginning of the maneuver there is a solid line of fuming assholes behind the "closed" truck, by the time the obstacle has been reached all fuming asshole traffic has completely merged behind the "open" truck. Since it is only merging at the point of obstruction that slows traffic more than the obstruction itself already has, this is a net win.
Of course this maneuver must be repeated by successive pairs of truckers, and occasionally an asshole will "win" by racing forward between pairs, but that's minor.
I don't understand the claim that front bumper to front bumper is a bigger problem the faster you go. When you're going fast, the 4 meters of a car are much shorter (in terms of time), because 4 meters at 4 m/s is a much smaller amount of time than 4 meters at 0.2 m/s.
I don't understand the claim that front bumper to front bumper is a bigger problem the faster you go. When you're going fast, the 4 meters of a car are much shorter (in terms of time), because 4 meters at 4 m/s is a much smaller amount of time than 4 meters at 0.2 m/s.
It says it is a bigger problem at low speeds.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the one thing that really pisses me off. It gets worse when the lane that you are merging into has a line of cars going back almost a kilometer. Doing this is like saying "Hey you idiots, look how smart I am" to everyone waiting for their way in the right lane.
What pisses me off is having to wait in a kilometer-long line of people merging when what I really want to do is turn right down a side street. Please keep that line as short as possible by using all the lanes available.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Part of the problem is a lack of established convention. When a theme park opens its gates in the morning, we expect a large crowd to jostle in through a constricted entrance like a funnel. However, when we queue up at the bank, if the line extends past the cordon, nobody runs up to that point and stands shoulder to shoulder with other patrons; we maintain a single file. Which of these rules applies to cars merging?…
There is a protocol. Even in heavy traffic, if you observe the following distance that the DMV tells everyone to observe when taking a driving test there is always room to merge.
Who on earth leaves such a distance in stop-and-go traffic? I certainly haven't seen it. You might as well just assume that every driver will be safe, considerate, and wise.
I wish more drivers would follow the driving etiquette that advises one to "stay right except to pass." On every highway trip I see countless cars camped out in the left lane but moving at the same rate as the rest of traffic. One should only use the left lane for passing. Otherwise, stay right. Traffic flows smoothly when people follow this system.
In many places this is the law, rather than just ettequite. :)
Of course, that doesn't mean people actually stay right unless they're passing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is the one thing that really pisses me off. It gets worse when the lane that you are merging into has a line of cars going back almost a kilometer. Doing this is like saying "Hey you idiots, look how smart I am" to everyone waiting for their way in the right lane.
What pisses me off is having to wait in a kilometer-long line of people merging when what I really want to do is turn right down a side street. Please keep that line as short as possible by using all the lanes available.
Please leave exit lanes open by merging as soon as possible.
There are cases where leaving a greater-than-normal lane spacing makes sense, in the interest of safety. Safety is something utterly ignored in the fascinating analysis in this article. For example, if I'm in a left lane buzzing along at wide-open freeway speeds and the right lane next to me is congested and backed up and not moving, I leave more than normal spacing in front of me. Why? Because it's very likely that…
Shouldn't you leave less space, to dissuade people from jumping in the gap?