Rules of the Road

[Beerstalker]

if you know the lane you're in is going to close just merge when you can don't wait until the orange cones are next to your bumper

I'm sorry but I completely disagree. Merging early "when you can" ends up leaving one of the lanes with less traffic in it, which just invites the impatient, inconsiderate people to try passing everyone that has merged early. Which then causes the bottleneck and stop and go traffic when those impatient people cut in at the last moment.

When you see the merge ahead, or lane closed ahead sign there should be no more passing each other by any cars in either lane. The order of the cars should be locked in place, and drivers should just adjust their speed accordingly to allow the car slightly in front of them in the opposite lane room to merge in front of them (or for themselves to merge behind that car in the opposite lane that is slightly ahead of them). If two cars are directly even with each other the car in the lane that is open has the right of way, the car in the closing lane should drop back behind.

 

[MC6800]

When you see the merge ahead, or lane closed ahead sign there should be no more passing each other by any cars in either lane. The order of the cars should be locked in place, and drivers should just adjust their speed accordingly to allow the car slightly in front of them in the opposite lane room to merge in front of them (or for themselves to merge behind that car in the opposite lane that is slightly ahead of them). If two cars are directly even with each other the car in the lane that is open has the right of way, the car in the closing lane should drop back behind.

Your solution works fine if traffic is light enough that one lane can carry everyone through the bottleneck at its posted speed. Once it gets too heavy to merge (no matter how), it's backup city. And that backup point will keep working its way back until traffic thins, the merge point only delaying the inevitable.

 

[Gregg2]

You leaving work
[road with two lanes] - number of lanes on this street is irrelevant
[Your stoplight where you turn right]
[After turning, Sign that says right lane closed ahead]
[more road]
[Actual lane closure]
[Second stoplight]

Fixed that for you. Now the outline describes what I wrote.

For the zippered merge you should have picked the car in the left lane slightly ahead of you and stayed slightly behind it in the right lane until you got to the merge point and then changed lanes. The car slightly behind you in the left lane should stay slightly behind you leaving space for you to merge in.

Well, it's difficult for you to reach this conclusion without a tape measure. You need to know the distances involved behind "you" and the previous street, among other things. In the scenario the OP describes, if you change the bolded "should" to "won't" then the statement is on the plus side of the percentages. Most people will not let you in, because they're already upset about being delayed, and they did the wrong thing by staying in the "open" lane, which isn't moving.

In the story I told in post #55, this would not help the situation, it would make it worse. Once I turned right into the open but soon-to-be-closing right lane, I was already slightly ahead of the "last in line" car on the left, unless you count the others still lined up at a GREEN light behind the car that most recently crossed the intersection, because their only choices were to wait there or block the intersection. If I had done as you suggest, there would have been a line forming behind me on the street I just turned off of, and many would be honking within 10 seconds.

When you pass people in the right lane and then cut in at the last moment you are making all of those cars behind you have to suddenly change speed in order for you to fit in. That causes the car behind them to slow down, which causes the car behind them to slow down even more, etc until the 5th or 6th car back has to pretty much stop in order to keep from hitting the person in front of them, and everyone behind him has to stop too.

You've laid out a pretty good case there in favor of the zippered merge. The cause of your perception of "cutting in at the last moment" is all the drivers who don't understand that it's best for all concerned to fill all lanes until the lane that is closing actually is blocked by cones, etc. "Cutting in at the last moment" doesn't cause anyone to slow down. It's impossible to slow down from a dead stop. It does cause a delay if someone is nice and lets you in. Such delays will be minimized by everyone gettin on board with filling good pavement with cars and taking turns at the actual point a lane is blocked off.

The person that was driving in both lanes was pretty much trying to get everyone to do the zippered merge. He was trying to make sure that the people in the left lane were keeping enough room between them for him to fit in, while also trying to stay in the right lane where he should be. Instead, people see that person as being a "jerk" taking up both lanes and try to pass them on the right or left, the zippered merge goes out the window, and everything is screwed up.

No, that person is being a jerk. He is trying to prevent anyone from passing him in the still open lane closed ahead. He is in no way advocating for the zippered merge. If he was, he'd be in the lane that all the cars in front of him in the lane remaining open have chosen not to be in.

The really dumb thing in this whole situation is that the DOTs and DPWs haven't gotten rid of all those "Right/Left Lane Closed Ahead" signs and replaced them with "Fill All Lanes" and then at the point of closure "Take Your Turn".
[doublepost=1521591875][/doublepost]

I'm sorry but I completely disagree. Merging early "when you can" ends up leaving one of the lanes with less traffic in it, which just invites the intelligent people to pass everyone that has merged too early. *Which then causes the bottleneck and stop and go traffic when those impatient people cut in at the last moment.

Tried to fix that for you. *The bottleneck is caused by the road construction, not the cars. If there are cars present, there will be stop and go traffic by necessity, we're in the city, not on the open road.

When you see the merge ahead, or lane closed ahead sign there should be no more passing each other by any cars in either lane. The order of the cars should be locked in place, and drivers should just adjust their speed accordingly to allow the car slightly in front of them in the opposite lane room to merge in front of them (or for themselves to merge behind that car in the opposite lane that is slightly ahead of them). If two cars are directly even with each other the car in the lane that is open has the right of way, the car in the closing lane should drop back behind.

Again, we're in the city. That just doesn't work. Some people will want to be in the left lane no matter what, because they want to turn left at an upcoming street. Those going straight will want to be in the right lane for as long as possible, unless they get tired of having to let people turn in front of them from side streets. Those wanting to turn right ahead, obviously, are stuck with that opportunity to be courteous. Not everyone will see the "Closing Ahead" sign from the exact same distance. They will see the cars backed up due to the road work first. Some will move over, then see the sign and realize that lane is closed ahead. Some will turn onto the street with the traffic jamb at the "midpoint" of the line, if it has formed in one lane. (See my post #55.) Then you're presuming that the next driver in the lane remaining open will consider himself to be behind the driver in the lane that is closing. It won't work that way, especially if said driver is already frustrated from being stuck in traffic for more than two minutes. Who is going to enforce the order being "locked in place" anyway?

 

[hallux]

Why?

Heck of a lot easier to do that than to expect others to respect the zipper merge and let me in when the lane finally closes.

 

[Gutwrench]

“ALLOW CARS TO MERGE” signs posted where a lane terminates is persuasive.

 

[Glideslope]

“ALLOW CARS TO MERGE” signs posted where a lane terminates is persuasive.

As long as it's enforced.

 

[NeilHD]

“ALLOW CARS TO MERGE” signs posted where a lane terminates is persuasive.

There's a few places in the UK where I've seen "MERGE IN TURN" signs where 2 lanes become 1 at a known bottleneck.
[doublepost=1521647757][/doublepost]

I'm sorry but I completely disagree. Merging early "when you can" ends up leaving one of the lanes with less traffic in it, which just invites the impatient, inconsiderate people to try passing everyone that has merged early. Which then causes the bottleneck and stop and go traffic when those impatient people cut in at the last moment.

When you see the merge ahead, or lane closed ahead sign there should be no more passing each other by any cars in either lane. The order of the cars should be locked in place, and drivers should just adjust their speed accordingly to allow the car slightly in front of them in the opposite lane room to merge in front of them (or for themselves to merge behind that car in the opposite lane that is slightly ahead of them). If two cars are directly even with each other the car in the lane that is open has the right of way, the car in the closing lane should drop back behind.

Why are they impatient or inconsiderate? They are still driving on a road that is open. It is only later that the lane closes.

Slightly contrived example, but imagine we're queueing to buy tickets in a cinema. There are 2 lines. Line 1 has 20 people in. Line 2 has only 3 people in it. More people enter, look at Line 1 and think "oh, that's a big line, there must be something wrong with the shorter one", so they join Line 1. I walk in and join Line 2, getting served almost immediately. Am I inconsiderate?

(The merge point in this analogy - which I admit is getting rather tenuous! - is the point where the ticket collector takes your tickets after purchase).

To me, the people in the merging lane are not inconsiderate. The people in the "busy" lane are are not being smart by using all the available road and are just annoyed that they are being overtaken by people who are. Nobody forced them to be in that lane. They are welcome to move over, use the available space and merge in turn, thus shortening the queue of traffic.

 

[BarracksSi]

Heck of a lot easier to do that than to expect others to respect the zipper merge and let me in when the lane finally closes.

But by merging early, you're not doing anything to reinforce the zipper merge, either.

 

[Septembersrain]

No, I don't think so. My experience is that most drivers, in my area anyway, get in the line rather than take the open lane.

I know some people don't agree but if you are in a city where it's easier to just get in the open lane as soon as there is a gap, waiting until you get to the end of the closed one can cause a forced merge. People here will not let you in. You must turn on your signal and take the opening you get by either a slow or inattentive driver.

All the rest are in a rush and will not hesitate to keep you in that closed lane until you pull a dick move.

 

[samiwas]

If there is a lot of traffic, it just makes no sense to merge a mile or two before the merge point, pushing the point to where the traffic is backed up to twice as long. For example if there are 100 cars trying to merge. If they do it early the backed up area would be 100 cars deep. But if they zipper at the merge point, it would only be 50 cars deep.

IMHO the merge point is the merge point - there is no point in merging in early. The road is there to be used - use it. Make the most of the available space and the length of the traffic jam is reduced. So for me, the OP did the correct thing.

See, it seems to me that if the jam is a single lane of cars, then it will flow faster than if two lanes are trying to merge. So, you might have 100 cars backed up going 25 MPH, or 50 cars in each lane backed up going 10 MPH while merging. In this case, while the back-up distance is shorter, the time to actually get through it is longer.

If you ask me, the merge is what causes the backup. Yeah, you could theoretically have everyone on the same page still driving 25 MPH and effortlessly zipper merging at the last second, but if anyone thinks that's a realistic scenario, you're mistaken.

 

[0388631]

Ideally, you set up a plow at the front of your vehicle and plow people off the road.

 

[Huntn]

See, it seems to me that if the jam is a single lane of cars, then it will flow faster than if two lanes are trying to merge. So, you might have 100 cars backed up going 25 MPH, or 50 cars in each lane backed up going 10 MPH while merging. In this case, while the back-up distance is shorter, the time to actually get through it is longer.

If you ask me, the merge is what causes the backup. Yeah, you could theoretically have everyone on the same page still driving 25 MPH and effortlessly zipper merging at the last second, but if anyone thinks that's a realistic scenario, you're mistaken.

The merge I’m talking about comes 1/4 mile before a light. Traffic is crawling though the merge point regardless. The zipper merge at the merge point reduces how far back traffic is backed up.

 

[Gregg2]

I know some people don't agree but if you are in a city where it's easier to just get in the open lane as soon as there is a gap, waiting until you get to the end of the closed one can cause a forced merge. People here will not let you in. You must turn on your signal and take the opening you get by either a slow or inattentive driver.

All the rest are in a rush and will not hesitate to keep you in that closed lane until you pull a dick move.

I agree that most people will not let you in, given the scenario that signs are not encouraging filling all lanes and taking turns (the "zipper" not "forced" merge). It is those people who refuse to do the intelligent thing who are pulling the "move" you describe.

See, it seems to me that if the jam is a single lane of cars, then it will flow faster than if two lanes are trying to merge. So, you might have 100 cars backed up going 25 MPH, or 50 cars in each lane backed up going 10 MPH while merging. In this case, while the back-up distance is shorter, the time to actually get through it is longer.

If you ask me, the merge is what causes the backup. Yeah, you could theoretically have everyone on the same page still driving 25 MPH and effortlessly zipper merging at the last second, but if anyone thinks that's a realistic scenario, you're mistaken.

The original scenario does not involve moving traffic. Everyone is at a dead stop half the time. We're in the city, where there are traffic lights. On the open road, I agree with your assessment. If traffic is moving, everyone should be able to merge whenever they feel like it. Safety first, of course.

But here's the basic problem; if cars are moving at less than the posted speed as you approach the bottleneck (caused by a lane closure) then the space between cars is reduced as more arrive on the scene, eventually causing a backup. But, until there is a backup, it really doesn't matter what lane you're in.

 

[NeilHD]

See, it seems to me that if the jam is a single lane of cars, then it will flow faster than if two lanes are trying to merge. So, you might have 100 cars backed up going 25 MPH, or 50 cars in each lane backed up going 10 MPH while merging. In this case, while the back-up distance is shorter, the time to actually get through it is longer.

If you ask me, the merge is what causes the backup. Yeah, you could theoretically have everyone on the same page still driving 25 MPH and effortlessly zipper merging at the last second, but if anyone thinks that's a realistic scenario, you're mistaken.

The thing is, a jam twice as long has a much longer knock-on effect. The extended line of cars could be causing other issues back down the road - blocking another set of lights, preventing other cars from turning out of junctions etc. All of those in turn cause further issues.

 

[BarracksSi]

See, it seems to me that if the jam is a single lane of cars, then it will flow faster than if two lanes are trying to merge.

Flow speed of jammed traffic will only be as fast (or slow) as the jam point itself.

Say that the construction zone has its own speed limit of 25 mph. For as far back as traffic is close together, their max speed will only be 25 mph, too.

Or, perhaps more accurately, if you view "flow" as "vehicles per minute", or VPM, look at it this way: The traffic flow through the construction zone -- let's say it's 60 vehicles per minute -- will determine how much flow there is further back in the jam. And if the merge goes from two lanes down to one, those two lanes combined can only do as good as 60 VPM -- which means that each lane of that pair can flow no better than 30 VPM. Each lane's flow rate is half of the total. So if we take the 25 mph limit in the construction zone, we can expect the merge area to run at half speed, which would be 12.5 mph.

Take it yet other way --

If we wanted both lanes to maintain their 60 VPM flow rate, they'd add up to 120 VPM, which means that the speed through the single-lane construction zone will have to be twice as fast. This is like fluid moving through a large-diameter pipe and into a small-diameter pipe. However, no sane person is going to advocate for traffic to travel through a construction zone at well over a hundred miles per hour.

 

[samiwas]

Flow speed of jammed traffic will only be as fast (or slow) as the jam point itself.

Say that the construction zone has its own speed limit of 25 mph. For as far back as traffic is close together, their max speed will only be 25 mph, too.

Or, perhaps more accurately, if you view "flow" as "vehicles per minute", or VPM, look at it this way: The traffic flow through the construction zone -- let's say it's 60 vehicles per minute -- will determine how much flow there is further back in the jam. And if the merge goes from two lanes down to one, those two lanes combined can only do as good as 60 VPM -- which means that each lane of that pair can flow no better than 30 VPM. Each lane's flow rate is half of the total. So if we take the 25 mph limit in the construction zone, we can expect the merge area to run at half speed, which would be 12.5 mph.

Take it yet other way --

If we wanted both lanes to maintain their 60 VPM flow rate, they'd add up to 120 VPM, which means that the speed through the single-lane construction zone will have to be twice as fast. This is like fluid moving through a large-diameter pipe and into a small-diameter pipe. However, no sane person is going to advocate for traffic to travel through a construction zone at well over a hundred miles per hour.

Errr, yeah. I'm not suggesting that people will go twice as fast as normal. I'm saying that the result of two full lanes trying to merge into one is likely slow than half the speed of a single lane flowing through (presuming everyone merged early enough).

 

[Gregg2]

Errr, yeah. I'm not suggesting that people will go twice as fast as normal. I'm saying that the result of two full lanes trying to merge into one is likely slow than half the speed of a single lane flowing through (presuming everyone merged early enough).

Well, you can rely on your own logic, or you can read the studies linked above. The real question is what method moves the most cars through in a given time increment. The studies answer that for you, after scientific analysis.

 

[samiwas]

Well, you can rely on your own logic, or you can read the studies linked above. The real question is what method moves the most cars through in a given time increment. The studies answer that for you, after scientific analysis.

Granted that I just got home from a 13-hour workday, and I just skimmed quickly, but I see no links to any studies. Where are they?

 

[Gregg2]

Granted that I just got home from a 13-hour workday, and I just skimmed quickly, but I see no links to any studies. Where are they?

See Post #1 on the first page. Maybe just articles about the studies...

 

[quagmire]

Well this one should be an easy situation where everyone should agree with.... I was taking my car out for a spin today come to a traffic light both green, I am making a right turn, opposite traffic wanting to turn left. So knowing I have the right of way, I go to proceed to turn right. Nope.... The opposite traffic thought they were more important and had two cars decide to bolt out in front of me causing me to slam my brakes to a stop. It wasn't even close to where maybe one would have had room to do a suicide bolt in front of me, I was literally in the process of the right turn when I noticed the two people turning into me.

These were high end cars too. I just have to wonder how these people have enough intelligence to be able to get the money to afford these $70K+ cars yet are complete idiots behind the wheel of a car....

 

[MC6800]

Well this one should be an easy situation where everyone should agree with.... I was taking my car out for a spin today come to a traffic light both green, I am making a right turn, opposite traffic wanting to turn left. So knowing I have the right of way, I go to proceed to turn right. Nope.... The opposite traffic thought they were more important and had two cars decide to bolt out in front of me causing me to slam my brakes to a stop.

Right, unless it was a 2 lane road you're both turning onto, in which case you're both obligated to stay in your closest lane. Don't know if that's true in all states though.

 

[quagmire]

Right, unless it was a 2 lane road you're both turning onto, in which case you're both obligated to stay in your closest lane. Don't know if that's true in all states though.

It was a one lane each way road.

 

[Gutwrench]

I commuted to downtown St Paul in a POS Altima (with Iowa plates) which I drove and parked like I didn’t give a ****. I never had a problem; people just always gave me a wide berth.

I especially enjoyed parking next to *******s who couldn’t park properly...like the Audi trying to take up two spaces. Boom, Altima so close he’d have to use the passenger door or crawl through his trunk.

 

[samiwas]

Well this one should be an easy situation where everyone should agree with.... I was taking my car out for a spin today come to a traffic light both green, I am making a right turn, opposite traffic wanting to turn left. So knowing I have the right of way, I go to proceed to turn right. Nope.... The opposite traffic thought they were more important and had two cars decide to bolt out in front of me causing me to slam my brakes to a stop. It wasn't even close to where maybe one would have had room to do a suicide bolt in front of me, I was literally in the process of the right turn when I noticed the two people turning into me.

These were high end cars too. I just have to wonder how these people have enough intelligence to be able to get the money to afford these $70K+ cars yet are complete idiots behind the wheel of a car....

Did they have a turn arrow by chance? I know we have a big problem here with people understanding when to yield in those situations.

 

[quagmire]

Did they have a turn arrow by chance? I know we have a big problem here with people understanding when to yield in those situations.

Nope. Like I said, my light was green as well. So they would not have had an arrow.