<p>I am generally an easy-going person. And in particular, I am generally an easy-going driver. I stop a yellow lights and cross-walks. I am happy to park far away from the store and walk across the parking lot. My problem is that for the past month, one of the roads I drive to and from work has been under construction, and looks like it will continue to be under construction for a long time (it looks like they are replacing drainage canals underneath, perhaps). Amyway, because of the construction, what is susually a four-lane road with a middle turning lane is now two lanes with no turning lane. This means that traffic has to merge from two lanes into one lane–and here is my problem. I merge into the right lane (if it is the left lane that is closed) as soon as I pass the first “left lane closed ahead” sign. And most other people do too. But there are always one or two or more (depending on how much traffic there is) cars that stay in the left lane up until the cones force them to stop driving in that lane. They then aggressively try to move into the right lane. This is when my blood pressure starts to rise. It makes me furious to let these cars merge when they have skipped ahead of everyone else who merged when they were supposed to. </p>
<p>I do not want to care about this–so it takes a few extra minutes for me to get to and from work because of these cars. But I do care, to the point that I am considering driving 15 to 20 minutes out of my way to avoid this 5 or 10 minutes of intense annoyance. Even the fact that I have written all of this out is absurd. What deep-seated psychological issues could I have that are triggered by this traffic thing?</p>
<p>Nothing irrational about it. It is really annoying when people do that. I always want to not let them merge in. </p>
<p>My kids still talk about a long ago vacation where we were caught up in some huge construction mess where people kept doing that exact thing till two 18 wheelers started driving next to each other to block them. It made us so irrationally happy that we remember it to this day.</p>
<p>One of the things I like about merges in Western PA is that often times they specifically have a sign which says continue using both lanes till the merge. This way the lane closing sign is just a warning, but traffic is expected to move in both lanes. With this background I’ll probably be one of the ones who raises your BP.</p>
<p>Now sneaking through the breakdown lane and then trying to merge - that’s a different story.</p>
<p>I’ve seen this often, too. Last week, a driver right behind me took matters in to his own hand. Although both lanes were still open prior to the merge, I had moved over to the left lane (which was the only lane open down the road). The driver behind me drove right down the middle of the road, in the middle of the two lanes, so that drivers coming up from behind could not pass! I wouldn’t have had the guts to do it, but I was certainly glad he was behind me and preventing people from passing us, only to stop right before the cones and merge in, then.</p>
<p>I believe this is a well known operations research problem. I think it’s actually the case that the traffic flows better overall if drivers hold their lanes until the last moment, and then merge in an orderly manner.</p>
<p>I agree, Sikorsky. It makes sense for everyone to stay where they are and then at the end of the merge, cars from alternate lanes proceed. Traffic would move more quickly if everyone did it like this but unfortunately, this rarely happens.</p>
<p>I have experienced this twice a day, five days a week, for the last 10 years.
Let it go. You can’t control how others drive, you can only control your reaction to how others drive.</p>
<p>Sorry Amesie, but I have to agree with posters who wait until the cones/lane ends to merge. It definitely is what the state of PA TELLS you to do through their signage (at least in my experience driving north and south on Route 81), so I figure they must have knowledge in how to keep traffic flowing as efficiently as possible.</p>
<p>I had no idea that there were places where the signs say to stay in your lane. That might be the more efficient way, but here the signs say “merge left” and “right lane closed ahead” long before you get to the cones that actually close the lane. And 90-some percent of cars do merge before the traffic stops. It is the ones that keep driving, past all of the people who have done what the signs say to do, that make me mad. Although thanks to those of you who have sympathisized, I am thinking that perhaps my madness is not irrational (or at least not abnormally irrational).</p>
<p>I am one of those drivers who would stay in my lane until it’s closed, then would do the alternate merge. It is a legal lane, why shouldn’t people drive on it until it’s closed. It is a different matter when people are driving on a lane that’s not meant for exit(only) lane, and then trying to cut over at the last minute.</p>
<p>There’s a lot of information from state traffic control that merging too early in heavy traffic creates problems. The drivers who continue to use the legal lane until it ends are driving efficiently, not rudely. If traffic is moving at high speeds, it’s safer to merge soon after you are notified of the lane closure. If traffic is heavy, you should wait until the end to merge.</p>
<p>So it’s actually illogical to merge the moment you’re notified a lane is closing ahead. All the people who think they’re superior and proving a point by driving between two lanes are technically breaking the law and don’t understand how traffic flow works.</p>
<p>Hopefully this will help the OP lose that road rage at drivers who are actually driving legally, correctly, and efficiently.</p>
<p>I find this advice about staying in the lane until it ends very odd–I can easily see myself running out of road and having to stop and wait until someone in the open lane is courteous enough to let me in (ha!) or a gap in traffic arises, thus holding up the entire lane behind me. The “merge in an orderly manner” and “take turns with the other drivers” idea sounds lovely but wouldn’t happen anywhere I drive–if theirs is the lane that is open, drivers aren’t going to yield to anyone else–assuming they even notice that the other lane has ended. I think it’s far safer and less nervewracking to merge as soon as you see an opening.</p>
<p>The voice of America: “Me! Me! Me!” That’s why the “merge in an orderly manner” breaks down, I think.</p>
<p>I agree that using all the available lanes until they close is the most time / volume efficient method, so merge into the open lane(s) by turns.</p>
<p>Amesie, just want to chime in and say this raises my blood pressure also.</p>
<p>Most recently I experienced this where, due to construction, it took 35 minutes to exit the highway and proceed across bridge, a stretch which under ideal conditions would take about 5 minutes to travel.</p>
<p>It would be bad enough if one could just sit quietly through it, but stress levels rise exponentially when aggressive drivers are jockeying for position and refusing to wait their turn.</p>
<p>You only need to study a little queuing theory. Cars should stay in as many lanes as are open as long as possible. Then alternate merging into the single lane.</p>
<p>I am puzzled by this. I would have thought if people merged early and lined up ready to go on the single lane in advance, they would move faster. If they take time to merge at the last minute, the flow would be interrupted however briefly.</p>
<p>If the signage would tell people where they should merge, there would be fewer problems with this.</p>
<p>I experience this often, but in a situation in which people are going too far in a turn-only lane before merging into the lane that goes straight–this I find very annoying. Sometimes police will ticket people for doing that.</p>
As children we’re taught that it’s wrong to cut in line. So people get mad when they think others are trying to get an edge by cutting in at the end. That and a lack of understanding of the queuing process.</p>
<p>
The problem is that as the line of merged cars grows, it moves slower. The cars are closer together, and people are not comfortable traveling along at, say, 50mph, when they are nearly bumper to bumper. If there are 2 lanes, the same amount of traffic would move faster (being more loosely spaced) up until the point where they had to stop very briefly to take turns merging. If the traffic is light enough, the merge could take place without stops, just some slowing to allow the “zippering” effect.</p>
<p>Construction planners could encourage this with signs such as Pennsylvania uses so that the public doesn’t feel like other drivers are doing it wrong.</p>
<p>Sometimes truckers will actually drive down the middle of the two lanes to discourage those “fast trackers” who try to scoot up and slide in (you can’t tell me that isn’t their goal when they are WHIZZING by the slow lane - if it was, it would seem more appropriate to slow down and gradually get to the spot to merge in, not go full speed!</p>