# Driving peeve [merged]



## spirits (Aug 10, 2011)

I tend to think I am a patient driver I try to do the courteous thing.  Today however I really really really got  and am looking to guidance from the source of most of my wisdom.  Yes, I am referring to my fellow TUGGERS.  

I was driving to my wonderful place in Banff (3 hour highway drive) in my newer car.  Love being on the highway. DH did not want to go since we just got back from holidays but I got 4 days in a last minute rental.  Son and DIL are happy to come up for the weekend and life is good.  2 days on my own and 2 days with those I love.  Halfway there, there was a road sign indicating the right lane will end.  So there we were all pulling over to the left, getting inline.  Big rigs, holidaytrailers and us motorists.  Line was slow but moving.  !5 minutes later we were still there.  Some traffic was on the right but they were making a right turn off the highway.  

Then all of a sudden there was a whole swack of traffic on the right.  Not turning off but people getting out of line, going to the front and then butting in. OR worse never paying attention to the merging sign in the first place and just doing there thing and ignoring our lineup.  This line was over a mile long and I was getting angrier and angrier at those who decided to jump the line.  I constantly get this when I am in the city and it puts me back 15 minutes,  I don't like it but there does not seem to be a policy to address this and hey it is only a few cars.  BUt today I figure it took 1 hour of my time so these 30-40 freeloaders could jump the line.  There were at least 50 vehicles ahead of me and noone in front jumped the line.  There were around 20 behind me and they were not jumping the line.Only those way in the back.  One of the problems was the warning sign was WAY too far back but this is a major highway.  Any suggestions? PS I.m in Banff with my cup of tea and the weather looks good


----------



## loafingcactus (Aug 10, 2011)

In the book Traffic he has science that they are actually doing you a favor, even though the fairness issue causes anger.

I timed my local jam up that I used to drive around and it took 3 minutes.  Which chilled me out.  Also, mine is less than a mile from the airport son you never know if they are jerks or people who legitimately didn't know what was going to happen.


----------



## ricoba (Aug 10, 2011)

Just a typical daily commute here in Los Angeles.   

Now, aren't you glad to be in Banff instead of LA?


----------



## dougp26364 (Aug 10, 2011)

When another driver ticks me off, I pop this song in the CD player and it cheers me up. It's called the I-95 song. This version is sung by Jimmy Buffett. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uPWHfrU3PSQ


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 10, 2011)

I'm sure someone else will chime in here as well, but _technically_, the proper way to handle a lane ending (in a backup situation like you described) is to fill up both lanes to the point where the lane ends, and then alternate every other car.  Those cars in the right lane were not doing anything illegal.

But I certainly understand your frustration.

Kurt


----------



## pjrose (Aug 10, 2011)

It is rude and piggish and they are jerks who think they are better than anyone else (excusing the occasional person who may be clueless).  

My thoughts alternate among:

realizing they're jerks and I'm not and it's not worth getting upset about their rudeness

absolutely n-o-t letting any of the jerks in in front of me when I get to the front of the line.

making a big smiling waving deal out of letting a jerk in front of me at the front of the line, in the (undoubtedly incorrect) hope that they'll learn some manners

straddling my car over both lanes so as to block the jerks from cutting ahead  Yes, I have done this  .  If someone honks I smile and wave.  I would NOT do it in fast-moving or city traffic - don't want to be hit or shot


----------



## loafingcactus (Aug 10, 2011)

PigsDad said:


> I'm sure someone else will chime in here as well, but _technically_, the proper way to handle a lane ending (in a backup situation like you described) is to fill up both lanes to the point where the lane ends, and then alternate every other car.  Those cars in the right lane were not doing anything illegal.
> 
> But I certainly understand your frustration.
> 
> Kurt



Exactly, the book Traffic explains that scientifically this is the most efficient.  Those of us who "wait our turn" are the ones causing the traffic jam.

But I hate the cutters inners anyway!


----------



## pjrose (Aug 10, 2011)

PigsDad said:


> I'm sure someone else will chime in here as well, but _technically_, the proper way to handle a lane ending (in a backup situation like you described) is to fill up both lanes to the point where the lane ends, and then alternate every other car.  Those cars in the right lane were not doing anything illegal.





loafingcactus said:


> Exactly, the book Traffic explains that scientifically this is the most efficient.  Those of us who "wait our turn" are the ones causing the traffic jam.
> 
> But I hate the cutters inners anyway!



Yes but it seems to me that the lanes should fill from the front, not one lane from the front and one lane from the back.  That is, every-other-car should stay or go right, stay or go right, stay or go right, and then they should merge back the same way.  In which case, why bother to split apart into two lanes if you're just going to merge back into one?


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 10, 2011)

After many years and millions of miles observing driving habits of motorists, I can say that on-road etiquette definitely varies from locale to locale and at different times of day. While there are exceptions, I think drivers in Ohio and Connecticut are the most discourteous- followed closely by NJ drivers. I found for the most part that California drivers are the most courteous. Not to say that they would let all traffic pass them indiscriminately, but that they tend to signal their intentions, then do what they say they will. In the above situation, generally, they are pretty good about taking turns.

I don't have a lot of experience in Canada, so would add the anecdotal evidence to the mix.

A study was made that showed that instead of getting into the 'through' lane early when one or more are closed ahead, (my chosen 'courteous' method) actually all traffic goes through the bottleneck more quickly if traffic stays in it's original lane as long as possible, then merges one-by-one through the restriction. I don't like it and made many hidden hand signals to the offenders, but that's what the study showed.

Jim Ricks


----------



## heathpack (Aug 10, 2011)

ricoba said:


> Just a typical daily commute here in Los Angeles.



Which is why I ride the train!

Posted from my iPad2 with 3G. While riding the train of course.

H


----------



## Elan (Aug 10, 2011)

ricoba said:


> Just a typical daily commute here in Los Angeles.



  Which is why I live in Idaho!


----------



## heathpack (Aug 10, 2011)

Elan said:


> Which is why I live in Idaho!



But there is no ocean in Idaho!

And there is (gasp) a winter!
 

H


----------



## ricoba (Aug 10, 2011)

heathpack said:


> Which is why I ride the train!
> 
> Posted from my iPad2 with 3G. While riding the train of course.
> 
> H


----------



## Pat H (Aug 10, 2011)

Several times during construction in PA, there was a very large sign that said "Use both lanes until merge point". There was another sign further down that said "Merge here". Of course, people who decided to move over early despite what the sign said, acted like jerks. They didn't let people in and gave you a dirty looks or fingers. Even truck drivers would block the lane so people couldn't use both. It's so much smoother when you merge at the merge point and not before.


----------



## stmartinfan (Aug 10, 2011)

In Minnesota our highway department is working to encourage people to use the "zipper merge" - where you fill both lanes and don't merge together until the very end, alternating cars.  In their view it's the most efficient way to handle the merge, and maximizes the road space while minimizing  back up.  They've got signs by construction sites and have been getting some media coverage about it.

Of course, not everyone's heard the message yet, so there are still the "vigilanties" who think they need to block both lanes of traffic, so no one can pass them and fill the second lane - exactly the opposite of what they should do and creating a longer back up behind them.


----------



## stevedmatt (Aug 10, 2011)

Being from NJ, I can say you are right about NJ drivers, but I have experienced 2 state's drivers I feel are worse. The first is NY and the second is Massachusetts (Cape Cod summer drivers specifically).

I know it's hard to get around the Cape in the summer, but if you don't tailgate the person in front of you, someone will definitely, with out a doubt, cut in front of you constantly. Then, they will tailgate the person in front of them so no one can cut in front of them. It is the only thing I hated about the Cape.

I was approaching the Walt Whitman bridge coming from Philly to NJ the other day and there was construction on the bridge. Traffic was backed up about a mile and 4 lanes were merging into 2. They actually have the red X above the lanes that they don't want you in. Well the red X started around where the back up started. It didn't seem to bother the hundreds of drivers who sped by me doing 40-50 while I was sitting still so they could proceed to cut in front of me later. For a minute, I blocked the lane (like a jerk), then decided to pull over and let some by. Unreal how many honks and fingers I received. I just smiled and waved back. BTW, all NJ and Pennsylvania drivers.

To me the red X means the lane is closed, just like it does on the bridges.


----------



## Elan (Aug 10, 2011)

heathpack said:


> But there is no ocean in Idaho!



  And yet I might still be able to drive to it faster!


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 10, 2011)

pjrose said:


> Yes but it seems to me that the lanes should fill from the front, not one lane from the front and one lane from the back.  That is, every-other-car should stay or go right, stay or go right, stay or go right, and then they should merge back the same way.  In which case, *why bother to split apart into two lanes *if you're just going to merge back into one?


In the OP's situation, the traffic did not "split apart into two lanes".  It simply went from two lanes to one, with the right lane going away.  The problem in that situation is that too many people merged over to the left lane _way _too early, causing the left lane to back up much more than the right lane.  If they would have stayed in their original lane until both lanes were filled, it would have been more efficient / less stressful / safer / etc.

That being said, I find it uncomfortable staying in the right lane up to the merge point when everyone in front of me is merging over to the left early.  I usually end up merging over early as well, but I certainly don't get angry with the drivers who stay in the right lane up to the merge point (like they are supposed to do).

Kurt


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 10, 2011)

PigsDad said:


> In the OP's situation, the traffic did not "split apart into two lanes".  It simply went from two lanes to one, with the right lane going away.  The problem in that situation is that too many people merged over to the left lane _way _too early, causing the left lane to back up much more than the right lane.  If they would have stayed in their original lane until both lanes were filled, it would have been more efficient / less stressful / safer / etc.
> 
> That being said, I find it uncomfortable staying in the right lane up to the merge point when everyone in front of me is merging over to the left early.  I usually end up merging over early as well, but I certainly don't get angry with the drivers who stay in the right lane up to the merge point (like they are supposed to do).
> 
> Kurt



I would actually think that if people merged well before the merge point while there was room between cars and still moving would be more efficient than waiting until they come to a stop at a merge point and cause others in the through lane to also have to stop in order for them to merge.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 10, 2011)

We have something similar but not cause by construction. There is a very busy intersection that is two lanes each way with a couple left turn lanes. No right turn lane. Right after the intersection on the right is an on ramp to the highway. The far right lane is always backed up at rush hour. People get in that lane knowing they will be turning right on to the on ramp. There may only be a few cars in the other lane as those people are usually going through and not getting on the highway.

There will always be a few people that will zip up that open lane and then expect people to let them over in the short distance so they can get on the highway. When people slow down to let them over it cause people to block the intersection. Probably in the end the same number of people get through the intersection using the two lanes, but people get cheesed because they are going through and are blocked by people wanting to merge over. Those that got stuck by the light are also cheesed.


----------



## pjrose (Aug 10, 2011)

PigsDad said:


> In the OP's situation, the traffic did not "split apart into two lanes".  It simply went from two lanes to one, with the right lane going away.  The problem in that situation is that too many people merged over to the left lane _way _too early, causing the left lane to back up much more than the right lane.  If they would have stayed in their original lane until both lanes were filled, it would have been more efficient / less stressful / safer / etc.
> 
> That being said, I find it uncomfortable staying in the right lane up to the merge point when everyone in front of me is merging over to the left early.  I usually end up merging over early as well, but I certainly don't get angry with the drivers who stay in the right lane up to the merge point (like they are supposed to do).
> 
> Kurt



I wouldn't mind if the traffic were more or less evenly in the two lanes, as in the zipper merge explained above.  I object to the ones who swoop out from behind me to zoom by on the right and then try to get back in six cars ahead.   Their jockeying back and forth slows things down even more, and also increases the possibility of accidents.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 10, 2011)

heathpack said:


> But there is no ocean in Idaho!



If Idaho had an ocean, it'd have to be called New Zealand and there's already one of those. 

Jim


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 10, 2011)

pjrose said:


> It is rude and piggish and they are jerks who think they are better than anyone else (excusing the occasional person who may be clueless).
> 
> My thoughts alternate among:
> 
> ...



So true.  We see it a lot when there's an exit lane off the freeway alongside a backup.  When there's a backup which should be obvious miles back, the jerks will follow the exit lane at full speed, knowing full well they have no intention of exiting, and hoping to nudge in ahead of those in the backup lane.  When I see them doing this, I'm not too quick to let them cut in front of me.  In most cases, they know full well what they're doing (or trying to do).  Maybe this is a perfect setting for road rage.


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 10, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> If Idaho had an ocean, it'd have to be called New Zealand and there's already one of those.
> 
> Jim



Remember the song with the lyrics, "Tie up your boat in Idaho...?"


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 11, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I would actually think that if people merged well before the merge point while there was room between cars and still moving would be more efficient than waiting until they come to a stop at a merge point and cause others in the through lane to also have to stop in order for them to merge.


When you use both lanes, the length of the backed up line of cars is cut in half.  That mean less intersections blocked, etc.  The "zipper merge" is the most efficient when there is a backup of cars.

Kurt


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 11, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> We have something similar but not cause by construction. There is a very busy intersection that is two lanes each way with a couple left turn lanes. No right turn lane. Right after the intersection on the right is an on ramp to the highway. The far right lane is always backed up at rush hour. People get in that lane knowing they will be turning right on to the on ramp. There may only be a few cars in the other lane as those people are usually going through and not getting on the highway.
> 
> There will always be a few people that will zip up that open lane and then expect people to let them over in the short distance so they can get on the highway. When people slow down to let them over it cause people to block the intersection. Probably in the end the same number of people get through the intersection using the two lanes, but people get cheesed because they are going through and are blocked by people wanting to merge over. Those that got stuck by the light are also cheesed.





muranojo said:


> So true.  We see it a lot when there's an exit lane off the freeway alongside a backup.  When there's a backup which should be obvious miles back, the jerks will follow the exit lane at full speed, knowing full well they have no intention of exiting, and hoping to nudge in ahead of those in the backup lane.  When I see them doing this, I'm not too quick to let them cut in front of me.  In most cases, they know full well what they're doing (or trying to do).  Maybe this is a perfect setting for road rage.


Both of these situations have to do with people _not _following the correct driving rules.  Not the same situation as the OP's at all.

Kurt


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 11, 2011)

spirits said:


> Then all of a sudden there was a whole swack of traffic on the right.  Not turning off but people getting out of line, going to the front and then butting in.



Kurt, I'm not so sure it was that different.  At least the way I read this.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 11, 2011)

PigsDad said:


> When you use both lanes, the length of the backed up line of cars is cut in half.  That mean less intersections blocked, etc.  The "zipper merge" is the most efficient when there is a backup of cars.
> 
> Kurt



But on a divided highway, if people are merging while traffic is still moving then there is no back up at all. It is only when people wait until the merge point that it creates a back up.


----------



## loafingcactus (Aug 11, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> But on a divided highway, if people are merging while traffic is still moving then there is no back up at all. It is only when people wait until the merge point that it creates a back up.



No, according to the scientists this is exactly what causes the backup: overcrowding that lane when it is not necessary.

Now, to be fair, the merge at one spot generally doesn't work well other, for two reasons 1) it insults the sense of fairness for people who "waited their turn" and they purposefully interrupt the flow of traffic by not letting people merge at the last point, partly because of reason two, 2) poor signage doesn't give direction on how to handle the merge, in order for this to work properly there has to be a large sign pointing out an actual line in the sand where people *are* supposed to merge.

Again, as an American who has been subjected to a lifetime of the poor signage and with a sense of fair play, I'm the person waiting my turn and getting mad and occassionnally blocking late mergers.  But I'm also willing to accept the validity of scientific study and acknowledge that I am part of the problem.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 11, 2011)

In the end there is only so much capacity that can pass through a bottleneck at a given time. Using both lanes doesn't necessarily cause more people to be able to move through the bottleneck any faster, it just shortens the back up. If the volume of traffic is more than the capacity of the bottleneck, you will have a backup.

In order for the zipper merge to work, there has to be gaps between cars. At the merge point, people are bumper to bumper. If people merged over a two or three mile period, then this is more true of a zipper merge.


----------



## Don (Aug 11, 2011)

I have been in your situation many times; in line and watching those persons who are ate up with their own self importance go all the way down the ending lane to cut in.  But, in one instance after a very long merging distance, there was state police at the end pulling them over. I don't know if they were ticketed or just given a talking to, but they were delayed longer than if they had waited in line.
And, BTW, for about the last half mile the lanes were physically divided so they could not sneak over to avoid the police.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 11, 2011)

pjrose said:


> It is rude and piggish and they are jerks who think they are better than anyone else (excusing the occasional person who may be clueless).
> 
> My thoughts alternate among:
> 
> ...



IMHO, the best advice. These inconsiderate idiots are slowing the entire merge process for EVERYONE, and it should NOT be tolerated. If you arrived at a concert or theatre and got in line, as the line approached the door would you allow others to simply barge in ahead and skip right in front of you? Perhaps some would, but not me!


----------



## sstug (Aug 11, 2011)

For what it's worth I agree 100% with the OP.  This is one of my pet peeves as well and makes me angry when I watch others sneak up the right lane.  I deal with it often here in the Boston area (contrary to popular belief, the majority of Boston drivers merge properly and only a small percentage act like jerks-but the tailgating situation mentioned is so true).  Although I agree the 'zipper merge' is the best approach in general merge situations it does not excuse the jerks who were just trying to cut in line when this zipper method was not in play.  I have no suggestions on how to solve the problem, just let karma take it's course and put on some good music to calm you down.   I think your feelings are very valid and it's good you have TUG as a place to vent the frustration.  One thing I do is remember that any other driver may have a tire iron or gun with them...I do not want to be in the news from a road rage incident so I do my best not to react to these jerks.


----------



## Kozman (Aug 11, 2011)

Definitely agree with the 'zipper' merge method assuming the people up front play nice.


----------



## Conan (Aug 11, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> I think drivers in Ohio and Connecticut are the most discourteous- followed closely by NJ drivers.
> Jim Ricks


 
Connecticut drivers may be bad, but Massachusetts drivers are worse!


----------



## vacationhopeful (Aug 11, 2011)

stevedmatt;1155994... Unreal how many honks and fingers I received. I just smiled and waved back.[I said:
			
		

> Waving with your middle finger held high?.[/I]..



Ask the locals why they have an automatic transmission and not a stick? You need one hand to hold skyward and the other, to blast the horn.

I tell people travelling in the Northeast, to stay in the right lane, travel on the turnpike (less locals), and keep both hands on your steering wheel with the radio off. The locals will run you over if you go the speed limit and don't try to keep up with them ... locals know where the potholes are.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 11, 2011)

Conan said:


> Connecticut drivers may be bad, but Massachusetts drivers are worse!



I agree. I don't know what is wrong with Ohio drivers.


----------



## pjrose (Aug 11, 2011)

Don said:


> I have been in your situation many times; in line and watching those persons who are ate up with their own self importance go all the way down the ending lane to cut in.  *But, in one instance after a very long merging distance, there was state police at the end pulling them over. I don't know if they were ticketed or just given a talking to, but they were delayed longer than if they had waited in line.
> And, BTW, for about the last half mile the lanes were physically divided so they could not sneak over to avoid the police.*



I love it!


----------



## pjrose (Aug 11, 2011)

Kozman said:


> Definitely agree with the 'zipper' merge method assuming the people up front play nice.



From reading this thread I am realizing that it makes sense - but it's not just those up front who need to play nice - those all along the way need to play nice.  Think of an actual zipper:  The "teeth" on one end of one side don't skip ahead to try to merge with "teeth" at the other end of the other side!  They merge L-R, L-R, L-R, etc - and the teeth in each side stay in their places waiting their turns to merge.

The issue here is with "teeth" - i.e. drivers - who move ahead out of order.




dioxide45 said:


> In the end there is only so much capacity that can pass through a bottleneck at a given time. *Using both lanes doesn't necessarily cause more people to be able to move through the bottleneck any faster, it just shortens the back up. If the volume of traffic is more than the capacity of the bottleneck, you will have a backup.*
> 
> In order for the zipper merge to work, there has to be gaps between cars. At the merge point, people are bumper to bumper. *If people merged over a two or three mile period, then this is more true of a zipper merge.*



Makes sense to me.


----------



## Htoo0 (Aug 11, 2011)

Around my area the single lane zones may last a mile or more. As stated I think the important part is zippering with the other vehicles. It's those who rush up to the very end of the closed lane, have to slow or stop, then 'push' in thus slowing the line down who cause all the problems.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 11, 2011)

*Driving Peeve-Part 2*

How about this one:

You enter an on-ramp to merge onto the expressway. You are accelerating up to expressway speed, and have your left turn signal activated to alert others of your intent to merge. As you approach the merge point with the highway, you notice in your mirror Bozo in the right lane accelerating to take the space that you need to merge into traffic. Monkey Boy (or girl) has no intention of allowing your merge, because that would mean YOU WOULD BE AHEAD OF THEM.  CURSES!!! 

Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but $#^+ for-brains in the right lane has four (4) different options when they see a vehicle in the merge lane with their signal illuminated to merge:

1. They can maintain their speed thus providing sufficient space for the vehicle to merge safely ahead of them 
2. They can decelerate slightly allowing sufficient room for the vehicle to merge ahead of them 
3. They can accelerate sufficiently to pull far enough ahead of the merging vehicle to allow it to merge behind them 
4. They can simply change lanes, and pull into the left lane. 

On the other hand, the merging vehicle has one (1) *safe* option: accelerate to highway speed and merge into the flow of traffic.

If I were in a position to do so, I would revoke the license of anyone that did this. Either that, or force them to wear a “Kick Me, I’m a Moron” sign on their back for a year.

There are more, but this one really grinds my axe.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 11, 2011)

It is up to the vehicle entering the highway to safely merge. Many states have a 'yield' sign on the on-ramp side in case there's any doubt. Obviously a point of courtesy would be for traffic already on the highway to either move left, accelerate, or slow to facilitate the merge, but no law forces them to do so.

Driving a big-rig for dozens of years and millions of miles, this situation occurred to me thousands of times. Usually I'd get some help, sometimes not and I'd end up driving down the shoulder until some kind soul would allow me onto the highway.

Same coin- other side- from time to time, I'd be in the right lane, a line of traffic entering and either high speed traffic to my left or other circumstances not allowing me to move left. 80,000 lbs doesn't accelerate too quickly and slowing down just blocks the road longer. I had no choice but to slow a bit, making more room ahead of me for oncoming traffic to move into.

It worked for over 4 million miles without a chargeable accident or incident.

Jim Ricks


----------



## stevedmatt (Aug 11, 2011)

I think most people would drive little more courteously if their license plate number was their cell phone number. Of course you'd have to remember the number and call them after you pull over to a safe spot.


----------



## pjrose (Aug 11, 2011)

Re peeve 2, I agree.

I'll call that 2a.

Variations incude:

2b. Bozo BEHIND you in the on-ramp decides to zippy-doo around you and zoom on to the highway in front of you.

2c. You are in the right lane, getting ready to be nice and move left so the people on the on-ramp can merge in, and bozo behind you in either the left or right lane decides that's a good time to pass you, prohibiting you from moving left and putting some pressure on the mergers.  
2.c.2. Meanwhile nudnick in the merge lane decides to zoom in front of you, you can't move left to avoid nud, so you end up having to slow down a bit.  

DH's merge-method is to look for an opening and then gun it.  Mine is to look for a really really big opening, and if there isn't one, slow down or stop and wait till there is one.  I find that most big-rig operators (Hi Jim ) and many car drivers will go to the left lane well ahead of the on-ramp, when possible, creating my nice big opening.

The best situation is a nice long merge/acceleration lane, but when it's just a short little ramp, that makes it difficult.


----------



## dioxide45 (Aug 11, 2011)

My beef is with people only traveling at 50 mph trying to merge on to a highway that is 65 and I am behind them worrying if someone will smack in to the back end of me when I try to merge over behind them. They are usually yakking on their cell phone.

They call it an acceleration lane for a reason.

Another beef I have is with people in pickups that have the tailgate down. I understand it is good for fuel mileage, but please make sure you don't have items in the truck bed that would cause serious accidents and injury if they came flying out. Things like rakes, buckets, shovels, or just trash.


----------



## MuranoJo (Aug 11, 2011)

pjrose said:


> Re peeve 2, I agree.
> 
> I'll call that 2a.
> 
> ...



Add to all of this a situation where the on-ramp is under construction with no shoulder and right at the top of a crest where people on the freeway don't see you in the merge lane until they're almost on top of you--and you're forced to literally come to a stop or run into a barrier to the right or a car to the left. 

I tend to use your DH's method of gunning it, but sometimes there simply is no choice.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 12, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> My beef is with people only traveling at 50 mph trying to merge on to a highway that is 65 and I am behind them worrying if someone will smack in to the back end of me when I try to merge over behind them. They are usually yakking on their cell phone.
> 
> They call it an acceleration lane for a reason.
> 
> Another beef I have is with people in pickups that have the tailgate down.* I understand it is good for fuel mileage*, but please make sure you don't have items in the truck bed that would cause serious accidents and injury if they came flying out. Things like rakes, buckets, shovels, or just trash.



I agree with your reluctance to ever be behind the mouth breather with their tailgate down. (Best advice, never follow behind _any_ pick up truck, gate up or down. You don't know whats going to fly out of that cab. I always pass, or remain far behind to allow plenty of space). 

However, one clarification: Toe walker does NOT get better mileage with the tailgate down, actually worse. This has been proven since gate down creates _more_ wind turbulence and thus _more_ drag. Gate up creates an air 'bubble' providing the truck less air resistance. Research it - you'll find I'm correct.


----------



## Don (Aug 12, 2011)

Passepartout said:


> After many years and millions of miles observing driving habits of motorists, I can say that on-road etiquette definitely varies from locale to locale and at different times of day. While there are exceptions, I think drivers in Ohio and Connecticut are the most discourteous- followed closely by NJ drivers.
> Jim Ricks


You forgot New York drivers.  For years I have said that there are only two kinds of drivers from New York: those who are trying to be in an accident and those who are trying to cause one without being in it.


----------



## pjrose (Aug 12, 2011)

Don said:


> You forgot New York drivers.  For years I have said that there are only two kinds of drivers from New York: those who are trying to be in an accident and those who are trying to cause one without being in it.



DH is from NYC.  It took me YEARS to get him to use his turn signal before a turn, rather than not until during the turn, if at all.  If there's someone double-parked on the right such that there's a very narrow space to go through, he seems to think there's some kind of law of physics that makes his car narrower if he accelerates through it.  

When we go back to the city I have to close my eyes and hold on tight, though I have to admit he's never caused an accident or been in one other than Chicago and New Hampshire when others hit him. 

I had to drive in NYC once, probably 30 years ago; I'm still scarred for life.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 12, 2011)

I thought that NYC and Mass drivers deserved honorable mention as aggressive drivers, but figured the blanket statement that 'there are exceptions' would cover crummy drivers from other locales than Ohio and CT.

Aggressive, discourteous drivers are where you find 'em. Out here, they are just stupid, unobservant and/or drunk. Feel free to replace any characteristic above with 'talking on cell phone'. Texting scores two strikes. Three and you are voluntarily removed from the gene pool.

Jim


----------



## heathpack (Aug 12, 2011)

Have lived in NY, Boston, Maine, North Carolina, Alabama, Georgia, and LA.

Sorry but NYers are pussycats compared to Bostonites!  Those folks have SERIOUS anger management issues.

Best drivers are in Maine.  If they are travelling slow, they will likely pull over and wave you by.  People from Maine are ingeneral the salt of the earth.   

H


----------



## Kozman (Aug 12, 2011)

I always try to be courteous to people merging onto the e-way.  But, trying to merge at 15 under the speed limit does not gain much sympathy.  Act like you want the spot and I'll give it to you.  Act like you expect me to slow down slower than you will not.


----------



## jlwquilter (Aug 12, 2011)

I like it when the light changes and the guy three cars back is already honking his horn. I guess he's never seen people runnning red lights before.


----------



## pjrose (Aug 12, 2011)

jlwquilter said:


> I like it when the light changes and the guy three cars back is already honking his horn. I guess he's never seen people runnning red lights before.



Grrrrr.....that makes me drive even more slowly.

DD is now running with an ambulance company - would you believe that some people give the AMBULANCE driver the finger when the ambulance is trying to pass them?


----------



## Don (Aug 13, 2011)

pjrose said:


> DH is from NYC.  It took me YEARS to get him to use his turn signal before a turn, rather than not until during the turn, if at all.  If there's someone double-parked on the right such that there's a very narrow space to go through, he seems to think there's some kind of law of physics that makes his car narrower if he accelerates through it.
> 
> When we go back to the city I have to close my eyes and hold on tight, though I have to admit he's never caused an accident or been in one other than Chicago and New Hampshire when others hit him.
> 
> I had to drive in NYC once, probably 30 years ago; I'm still scarred for life.


The last time I drove in NYC, I found out that they do not know what those white lines painted on the pavement are used for.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 13, 2011)

PigsDad said:


> I'm sure someone else will chime in here as well, but _technically_, the proper way to handle a lane ending (in a backup situation like you described) is to fill up both lanes to the point where the lane ends, and then alternate every other car.  Those cars in the right lane were not doing anything illegal.
> 
> But I certainly understand your frustration.
> 
> Kurt


Yup, that's the correct way.  Don't get angry with the people who are driving correctly.  Afterall, it is a lane not a line.  Use both lanes.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 13, 2011)

stmartinfan said:


> In Minnesota our highway department is working to encourage people to use the "zipper merge" - where you fill both lanes and don't merge together until the very end, alternating cars.  In their view it's the most efficient way to handle the merge, and maximizes the road space while minimizing  back up.  They've got signs by construction sites and have been getting some media coverage about it.
> 
> Of course, not everyone's heard the message yet, so there are still the "vigilanties" who think they need to block both lanes of traffic, so no one can pass them and fill the second lane - exactly the opposite of what they should do and creating a longer back up behind them.


I wish we'd could have tv information spots about how to merge.  Here in Utah way too many people have the "get in the back of the line" mentality and don't understand the proper use of both lanes.  Had one woman refuse to merge every other car--even though those ahead of her were doing it--and wouldn't even look at me.  She was the one who was rude, not me.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 13, 2011)

sstug said:


> For what it's worth I agree 100% with the OP.  This is one of my pet peeves as well and makes me angry when I watch others *sneak up the right lane*.  ....


They aren't sneaking.  They are driving correctly in one of the lanes that will, eventually, be merging.


----------



## pjrose (Aug 13, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> Yup, that's the correct way.  Don't get angry with the people who are driving correctly.  Afterall, it is a lane not a line.  Use both lanes.



I still don't agree with the ones from the back of the left lane zooming up to the front of the right lane.  If both lanes should be filled, then they should fill as people get to them...they'd be even, and as you approach them you either get in the back of the right or the back of the left, keeping them even, and not cutting ahead.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 13, 2011)

pjrose said:


> I still don't agree with the ones from the back of the left lane zooming up to the front of the right lane.  If both lanes should be filled, then they should fill as people get to them...they'd be even, and as you approach them you either get in the back of the right or the back of the left, keeping them even, and not cutting ahead.


PJ, I have been in situations when I did not know there was a lane merger up ahead.  The "line" as you call it, had backed up so far that I could not see the merger sign.  It was only when I had "zoomed up" the uncrowded lane that I then saw a sign to merge.  By then, no one wanted to let me merge.  If they had used both lanes correctly, this would not have happened.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 13, 2011)

dioxide45 said:


> I would actually think that if people merged well before the merge point while there was room between cars and still moving would be more efficient than waiting until they come to a stop at a merge point and cause others in the through lane to also have to stop in order for them to merge.


This only works if the merge signage is far enough ahead of the merge point that it can be seen--several  miles in some cases.  See my previous post.

Also, this only works if traffic is very, very light.  Every time a car merges into another lane, it must either slow down if the car it is merging behind is going slower _and also _the cars that are behind the merging car must also slow down to keep the proper distance between cars.  One car slowing down forces all cars behind it to slow down.  Two lanes merging into one will always cause a slowdown unless there is hardly any traffic on the road to begin with.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 13, 2011)

pjrose said:


> From reading this thread I am realizing that it makes sense - but it's not just those up front who need to play nice - those all along the way need to play nice.  Think of an actual zipper:  *The "teeth" on one end of one side don't skip ahead to try to merge* with "teeth" at the other end of the other side!  They merge L-R, L-R, L-R, etc - and the teeth in each side stay in their places waiting their turns to merge.
> 
> The issue here is with "teeth" - i.e. drivers - who move ahead out of order.
> 
> ...


 
There is no "skipping ahead."  What is happening is that the teeth who merge too early are skipping too soon causing the zipper to malfunction.


If tuggers choose to merge early, fine.  But don't get upset at the drivers who are zooming past you because they are the ones driving correctly.   They are not the ones who are causing one lane to snake back.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 13, 2011)

pjrose said:


> I still don't agree with the ones from the back of the left lane zooming up to the front of the right lane.  If both lanes should be filled, then they should fill as people get to them...they'd be even, and as you approach them you either get in the back of the right or the back of the left, keeping them even, and not cutting ahead.


They would be even if people did not merge too early.


----------



## sstug (Aug 13, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> They aren't sneaking.  They are driving correctly in one of the lanes that will, eventually, be merging.



I think sometimes it depends on the specific road and situation (if the lane will end or already has ended). Although it's possible in the OP's situation that the cars had merged "too soon", my experience is where there is a right turn only lane that people use to bypass the long line of merging/merged cars to get to the front.  By doing this they are blocking me when I am trying to turn right because they ignored the fact that their lane had ended and they were supposed to have merged into the left lane.  The other common scenario is driving down the breakdown lane then forcing their way in further ahead.

Remember that the OP called it a "pet peeve" and never actually accused anyone of breaking the rules (just being inconsiderate).  It's like getting stuck behind someone driving the speed limit in a left lane when all other traffic in all lanes is going 10 -15 miles over the speed limit.  They are driving correctly also but still drive most of us absolutely crazy.  And before everyone tells me they should move over to the right (yes I know that) they think that the rest of the drivers on the road should drive the speed limit so they shouldn't have to move.

But then again, what do I know?  I drive in Boston.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 13, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> They aren't sneaking.  They are driving correctly in one of the lanes that will, eventually, be merging.



Then why does the highway department bother to post the signs "Right lane closed 2000 feet, Merge left"?


----------



## pjrose (Aug 13, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Then why does the highway department bother to post the signs "Right lane closed 2000 feet, Merge left"?



As opposed to "Right lane closed 2000 feet ahead, Move Right and Split Into Two Lanes Now and Then Merge Left in 1,500 Feet" which seems to be the zipper method ???


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 13, 2011)

sstug said:


> ...
> 
> Remember that the OP called it a "pet peeve" and never actually accused anyone of breaking the rules (just being inconsiderate).  ....


It's one of my pet peeves, too, only in reverse.  I think it is the ones who merge too soon which can cause traffic confusion and a long line of cars snaking back for miles who are the ones who are inconsiderate.



Phydeaux said:


> Then why does the highway department bother to post the signs "Right lane closed 2000 feet, Merge left"?


 
It is letting both lanes know that they are merging into one lane and which lane that will be--in your example the left lane.  If I am driving in the right lane, I know that I will have to merge into the left lane in 2000 feet.  If I am driving in the left lane, I know to allow for traffic merging into my lane in 2000 feet.  In 2000 feet, not before.  If people merge too soon and cause one lane of traffic to back up for 3000, 4000, 5000 feet or more, then the people driving in the right lane may continue to drive in it because they won't see the sign until the 2000 foot mark and by then the people in the left lane will think they are "inconsiderates"  "zooming" up the right lane trying to "butt into line."   



pjrose said:


> As opposed to "Right lane closed 2000 feet ahead, Move Right and Split Into Two Lanes Now and Then Merge Left in 1,500 Feet" which seems to be the zipper method ???


PJ, I'm  not sure what you are saying.  Two lanes, right and left, will merge.  Not one lane splitting and then merging back into one.  The zipper method assumes two lanes are merging into one.  Not one lane splitting into two and then reuniting.
...............................

I am only saying how I was taught to drive in driver's ed.  The traffic studies also show this is the best method.  Why fight it?  It is the correct way to do it.  When done correctly, it is the most efficient, sane way to merge.  It causes less traffic back-up and less confusion.  Why hate the people who are driving correctly?  If you merge too soon and someone passes by you in the underused lane, that is not their fault.  It is not their fault you merged too soon.  They are not the ones who are inconsiderate.  It is you if you refuse to let them in at the merger point.


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 14, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> If tuggers *choose *to merge early, fine.  But don't get upset at the drivers who are zooming past you because they are the ones driving correctly.   They are not the ones who are causing one lane to snake back.


Well said, Rose.   When a driver gets into the backed up line early, they _chose _to do that.  I don't understand why, then, they get all angry at the drivers who did not choose to merge over early.

As I have stated earlier in this thread, I often merge over early as well.  But that is my decision.  When I get up to the merge point, I zipper merge like I am supposed to do.  I certainly don't do some of the petty, stupid, dangerous and often illegal actions that have been mentioned here such as not letting them in at the merge point, blocking the other lane and other such moves.  People who do that are the rude and inconsiderate drivers -- not the ones obeying the driving rules and correctly using both lanes.

Kurt


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 14, 2011)

PigsDad said:


> As I have stated earlier in this thread, I often merge over early as well.  But that is my decision.  When I get up to the merge point, I zipper merge like I am supposed to do.  ....
> Kurt


[_sigh_] I admit to caving in to peer pressure as well and have merged too early.  And, like you, I don't get angry at the people passing me by in the other lane because they had more guts to drive correctly than I did.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 14, 2011)

*Analogy*

Theme parks usually have two queues for the most popular rides.  (I've figured out which side moves faster at Splash Mountain.)  If you are in one line and the other line is moving slightly faster, do you get mad at the people in that line?  

Scene One: a person from the other line gets out of that line and cuts in front of you or someone one in line behind you. 

Scene Two: They stay in their line all the way up to the boat log ride.  

The first scenario where they get out of their line and get in front of you--or even behind you but in front of others--represents people who merge too soon. 

The second scenario where they stay in their queue all the way to the time they get on the ride represents people who stay in their lane all the way to the point of merger.

......................................
If you remember that when traffic merges there are two lines--not one--you may not think you are being cheated when someone moves up in the other lane/line to the merging point.


----------



## laurac260 (Aug 14, 2011)

The worst drivers are canadiens, mostly because they drive painfully slow and hesitant , which can be just as dangerous as driving too aggressively.  Next I would say NY'ers, which are generally just rude.  No experience w/Cali so can't speak for them.  OHer's?  I live there .  They are run of the mill.  You get good drivers, bad drivers, too slow drivers, too fast drivers, but no worse than anywhere else in general.


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> They aren't sneaking.  *They are driving correctly* in one of the lanes that will, eventually, be merging.



Source link please.


----------



## Passepartout (Aug 14, 2011)

Here's a behavior study of the issue dated June 2011: http://www.workzonesafety.org/node/11323

From page 61 of the 64 page study: 

RECOMMENDATIONS
The team met with the technical advisory committee (TAC) at the conclusion of the project and reviewed project findings. The team and members of the TAC developed recommendations for future actions that could be tried to address the operation and safety work zone challenges identified.
Use of late merge, described in Section 7.2, was indicated as one potential recommendation to address changing the behavior of drivers who try to queue jump or block other vehicles. It was indicated that the late merge had been used in Minnesota, as shown in Figure 8.1. Late merge encourages drivers to use both lanes until near the merge point and then to alternate merges. This encourages drivers who are likely to lane straddle to cooperate rather than engage in policing behavior. It is not likely to be effective under lower volume conditions.
(my emphasis)

AND, this is from my own post in this thread (#9): 

A study was made that showed that instead of getting into the 'through' lane early when one or more are closed ahead, (my chosen 'courteous' method) actually all traffic goes through the bottleneck more quickly if traffic stays in it's original lane as long as possible, then merges one-by-one through the restriction. I don't like it and made many hidden hand signals to the offenders, but that's what the study showed.

Jim


----------



## pjrose (Aug 14, 2011)

ok, I won't straddle any more.  I've only done it a few times anyway.

But how do you encourage or enforce late merge?


----------



## PigsDad (Aug 14, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Source link please.


The fact that the lane going away is not yet closed until the merge point is proof that it is not illegal to drive in that lane.  Do you have some source that says otherwise???

Kurt


----------



## nightnurse613 (Aug 14, 2011)

A little off topic but years ago we went to a concert in jolly old England.  When we arrived in the area we were strategizing how we were going to rush the gate when we suddenly came to the line.  The English que up (form a single line) and there are no savies or cutsies and no crushing mob of humanity when the gates open up.  It was a pretty revolutionary idea for us.  On the other hand, I was frightened to death every time we rode in a taxi; first off, wrong side of the road, lack of designated lanes and lots of cobblestone streets!


----------



## am1 (Aug 14, 2011)

Hopefully everyone agrees that the way a forced merge happens now is inefficient.  

It would be much better if someone (police or someone making a lot less) at the merge was directing traffic if that was the way it was suppose to be.  1 car at a time from each lane is not the right way.  It just triggers everyone behind them to move up the length of a car so no one from the other lane gets in front of them.  Also no changing lanes till the merge would be great.  

The best solution is to reduce the amount of times where merges are needed. 

Anywhere in the US/Canada is much more efficient than Panama and I am sure other countries.


----------



## 1950bing (Aug 14, 2011)

I live in a place that thinks they know how to solve traffic problems.They took a four lane road, cut it down to two and then at a very busy intersection installed
an 11 million dollar traffic circle.


----------



## spirits (Aug 14, 2011)

*Thank you everyone*

Oh I feel much better after reading all your comments.  Back home and my DH made me home made chicken soup with noodles.  Catching up on my reading and I have learned a lot about traffic and its problems. I figured out the answer. Trouble is I am WAY too old I learned how to drive when it was a much slower pace and fewer cars on the road.  Any traffic problems were obvious because there were fewer cars and we generally followed the signs.  No making up rules just following those we learned in kindergarten  Wait your turn, Say thank you.  No cheating etc.   I had heard of the zipper method before but never heard it called that, just there was "A Study Somewhere?"   Traffic is growing and our capacity for using common sense solutions seems to be diminishing at the same rate.  I think I will just decide to be as courteous as possible and consider it a downpayment into my "Karma Bank"


----------



## Phydeaux (Aug 14, 2011)

Let's face it, and be honest with yourselves for crying out loud! :annoyed: 

The reason the folks trying to rationalize racing up and squeezing in at the last possible moment aren't trying to merge *safely* at all! That's BS, and I don't buy it for a microsecond. 

The reason you're doing it is to get ahead of other vehicles! It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out either.  When you, and everyone else with eyes, sees the lane you're in is closing and merging, the safe and SMART, COURTEOUS, thing to do is........... guess what? MERGE!!! 

That spot that is 3 cars widths wide and open for you - merge into it!! Only people that are trying to skip ahead to the front of the line (so they can be first) will pass up a golden opportunity to *safely* merge. 

Some folks should use public transportation.

_What's next, rationalizing Chair hogging??  Wahh..shucs.... ah git up at fahv eh em te git dis hare chare...nah itz mahn _


----------



## ondeadlin (Aug 14, 2011)

Rose Pink said:


> There is no "skipping ahead."  What is happening is that the teeth who merge too early are skipping too soon causing the zipper to malfunction.
> 
> If tuggers choose to merge early, fine.  But don't get upset at the drivers who are zooming past you because they are the ones driving correctly.   They are not the ones who are causing one lane to snake back.



THIS is the key.

All the drivers who immediately get over first think they're helping, but in reality they're slowing the whole operation down and creating an unsafe situation.

This is a regional cultural driving problem.  On the East Coast, everyone uses the zipper merge. No one gets over into one lane.  In the Midwest, where I live now,  everyone thinks they have to immediately make one lane.  They've done multiple studies on this, though, and immediately getting over is (1) slower; and (2) less safe.

The sanctimonious Midwesterner who merges three miles from the merge point and then uses his car to block others from "cheating" (when in reality he is creating the problem and endangering others) is absolutely among MY top driving pet peeves.

Pennsylvania has had such a problem with this that they've made up special signs for Route 80 construction zones explaining that the zipper merge is more efficient.  They also ticket lane straddlers.


----------



## Talent312 (Aug 14, 2011)

nightnurse613 said:


> ...[In England] I was frightened to death every time we rode in a taxi; first off, wrong side of the road, lack of designated lanes and lots of cobblestone streets!



If you found England daunting (I got used to driving on the left), consider Rome, Italy:
-- When I drove there, there was only one traffic light in the whole city (it seemed).
-- We circled around our hotel 4-5 times, b4 noticing street names on buildings.
-- Just riding in a taxi was death-defying; the drivers are nuts and there are no rules.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 14, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Source link please.


Drivers ed class.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 14, 2011)

Phydeaux said:


> Let's face it, and be honest with yourselves for crying out loud! :annoyed:


I am.  You should try it.  Like I and others have said, drivers ed class as well as traffic studies say the zipper method is safest and most efficient method for congested merges.  It's logic.



Phydeaux said:


> The reason the folks trying to rationalize racing up and squeezing in at the last possible moment aren't trying to merge *safely* at all! That's BS, and I don't buy it for a microsecond.
> 
> The reason you're doing it is to get ahead of other vehicles! It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to figure it out either.  When you, and everyone else with eyes, sees the lane you're in is closing and merging, the safe and SMART, COURTEOUS, thing to do is........... guess what? MERGE!!!
> 
> That spot that is 3 cars widths wide and open for you - merge into it!! Only people that are trying to skip ahead to the front of the line (so they can be first) will pass up a golden opportunity to *safely* merge.


You certainly have a poor opinion of me and you've never even met me.  Also, you are not a very good mind reader so don't give up your day job.  It is not my intention, and never has been, to "get ahead" nor cheat anyone.   That is not on my mind as I drive the way I was taught.

As I have repeatedly explained in this thread, it is not always possible to know a merger is up ahead if one of the lanes is snaking back so far that a driver does not yet come to the sign announcing the merger.  How do you know to merge if you don't know there is a lane closure?  This has actually happened to me.  As for a "spot that is 3 car widths wide and open?"  When does that happen?  I've often been in traffic when the cars were so tightly spaced there was no room for a smooth glide into the next lane.  What if you are entering the interstate from the right and need to get over to the left lane to merge and that left lane is already backed up?  Happens.

I don't know where you live but I live in the land of the orange construction cones.  I recently took a mini-vacation where I drove south from SLC on I-15 and then back again north of SLC on I-15 into southern Idaho.  In the uninhabited areas it was easy to see the lane closures and merge without having to slow down or wait until the merge point because traffic was so very, very light.  In the congested city areas, this is not the case.

To use your "rocket surgeon" phraseology, it doesn't take one to figure out that two 300-yard lanes of cars merging provides more visibility than one 600-yard lane of cars.  Maybe your eyes are better than mine but I find it difficult to read a traffic sign from 5 football fields away.  How in the world am I supposed to know there is a lane merger if I can't even see it?  This happens to drivers who do not travel a route as often as the locals. 

I've provided examples where it is not possible to merge early even if a driver desparately wanted to.

Also, again, there are *two* lanes, not one.  Both lanes are viable and legal as long as they are open.  Ever been to Disneyland?  It is a perfect example of the zipper merge. Double lines saves on real estate and keeps the crowd in check.  If you are in the left lane, the drivers in the right lane are not depriving you of your place in your lane.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 14, 2011)

ondeadlin said:


> THIS is the key.
> 
> All the drivers who immediately get over first think they're helping, but in reality they're slowing the whole operation down and creating an unsafe situation.
> 
> ...


I think I also saw a sign recently telling drivers to use both lanes but I've driven so many miles the past few days that I don't remember where I saw it.


----------



## Rose Pink (Aug 15, 2011)

Just a few things I pulled off the internet about merging:

http://www.dot.state.mn.us/newsrels/04/08/31merge.html
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/trafficeng/workzone/doc/When-latemerge-zipper.pdf
It's a law in Germany--scroll down to "right-of-way." http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/regeln.shtml

And there are more if anyone cares enough to do a basic search.  Basically, what they say is what I've been saying: in light traffic conditions an early merge works but in congested traffic the late merge (zipper system) cuts down on congestion as well as rear-end accidents due to drivers not seeing merge signs because the traffic has backed up past the signs.


----------



## AwayWeGo (Mar 12, 2012)

*Drive Safely.  Specially In School Zones.*





-- hotlinked --​
-- Alan Cole, McLean (Fairfax County), Virginia, USA. ​


----------

