<p>It is a trade off. Those who stay in the ending lane are taking their chances they they will end up ahead. Most times they do, but not always. Lane zoomers aren’t guaranteed they will be let in and have the added stress of having to change lanes in heavier traffic. Liner uppers may be delayed, but get relative ease of passage in exchange for their wait. I tend to merge sooner rather than later. I also think it’s reasonable to let in such vehicles to keep the traffic flowing, though if I’ve already let in more than my fair share, I may let someone else do it!</p>
<p>The idea of telling my novice teen driver to stay in her lane, maintain speed and then execute a tight lane-change makes my blood pressure rise! </p>
<p>Honestly, if people didn’t speed, AND drive bumper-to-bumper, the idea of waiting til the last minute makes sense. But that is how most people seem to drive! Around here in heavy city traffic, teaching her to wait til the end of her lane would dangerous. In construction, I always tell her to get over at her first opportunity when there’s a sign that indicates a lane is ending.</p>
<p>I never knew you were even supposed to wait til the end. Around here, the signs say, lane ending merge left. I take that to mean, as soon as you can, not in .25 mile.</p>
<p>So I guess I’m adding to the problem!</p>
<p>Maybe they need to cover this one in driving classes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I can see how one might conclude that from having the proactive “merge here, take your turn” signs, but I don’t think anyone has ever given PennDOT that high of a compliment.</p>
<p>What gets my blood pressure up are those self-deputized police who take it upon themselves to block the second lane of traffic and prevent those who are trying to maximize efficiency from doing so.</p>
<p>Amesie’s anger is normal, but the posters who note that filling both lanes until the end - assuming that traffic is stop and go - are correct. If traffic isn’t stop and go, earlier merging is better. Hence the conflict. </p>
<p>Early mergers avoid conflict. I’m an early merger who has had to try to teach myself not to resent late mergers, and to recognize that I’m serving my own comfort level and the late mergers aren’t actually harming me in any way. But I’m fighting my natural reaction just as Amesie is. I think it helps to recognize that, as irritated as I might feel about it, the late mergers actually are right. (It’s different if they’re not actually in a legal lane, of course.)</p>
<p>Same issue with lane-splitting motorcycles.</p>
<p>I’m with Marilyn, sylvan, and others who say to stay in your lane as long as possible and then “zipper merge” at the actual merge point. </p>
<p>That’s how I was taught to do it, and it makes sense to me.</p>
<p>Isn’t this an issue for the people who are PAID to deal with such problems to solve? Why blame other motorists when the problems could be avoided by intelligent road marking? </p>
<p>If there is indeed a best way to address closed lanes, why not have clear markings instead of ambiguous and ineffective warnings. Of course, that is way too much to ask from our public servants!</p>
<p>I don’t have studies, Iglooo, but I think you are right. Sounds like a good theory. The trouble is the real world. Your scenario is people seeing in advance that their lane will soon end, and presumes that they will signal, and drivers will let them in. In that theory, the good lane keeps moving at nearly the same speed.The trouble is all don’t signal, all don’t go the speed of the lane they want to merge into, they aren’t always let it, and some just try to speed up in a deliberate attempt to pass as many cars as they can then get in. Sometimes those that merge “forget” they are to enter into the flow of traffic, like on an accelleration ramp. If a person knowingly continues on in a lane soon to close, he should realize that by choosing not to merge easily, but waiting to the last minute he has chosen to make the merge more difficult for himself, as he is, or at least should be, entering at the whim of those already in the lane. When a driver is passed by a vehicle in the soon-to-be closed lane, then soon after that car wants to merge in front of the passed vehicle, that does not foster the goodwill that goes with “zipper merge” theory. With a zipper, it’s a mechanical object, and the 2 sides are essentially traveling at the same speed and combining by filling in gaps. If one passes in the soon-to-close lane, he isn’t following the zipper theory; ane one who waits to the last cone may not be going the same speed, plus will have personalities to deal with- his own, and the drivers in the good lane. It has been my experience that the speeding, passing driver somehow feels he has a greater right to get where he’s going more than the cars next to him do. As if drivers in the good lane somehow owed him the courtesy of letting him in right after he has passed them. That is also contrary to a zipper. But I’ve never lived in Pa., where apparently signs encourage last minute lane changes.
Of course this largely applies to those familiar with the construction area, and applies less to someone on that stretch for the first time.</p>
<p>OK, Xiggi: How much should the taxpayers pay to deal with this problem, which amounts to, at worst, an irritant? Part of the problem is that the “answer” is not always the same. Stop and go traffic - merge late. Flowing traffic - merge early. The markings aren’t ambiguous or ineffective; they simply notify drivers of the situation and allow the drivers to deal with it. I don’t think any motorists are doing anything “wrong” in the sense of being dangerous, it’s just that people have different views of what is “appropriate” and take umbrage at the “other guys.” If this is the biggest problem any of us have to deal with in life… :)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Taxpayers should not have to pay more for adequate markings than for deficient ones. After all, how hard would it be to install cones and signage that corresponds to both the law (for that county or state) and the “expectations.” Really, how hard would it be to have a sign that says “Drive to this point” and “Start merging HERE.”</p>
<p>Fwiw, during a trip in Europe (probably the world experts in lengthy construction) I saw an effective “tool.” At the exact place where traffic was to merge, “someone” installed a mannequin dressed as a police officer with a sign that said “Merge here.” Simple and effective, especially with the unmistakable orange neon outfit. I am not sure about how many coffee breaks he got! :)</p>
<p>If you think of this as one lane merging onto a “main” lane, then I guess you could see it as cutting the line, but if you think of it as two lanes merging, it makes sense for both lanes to be used til the very end, then cars alternating moving forward. That’s how I think of it, and so I don’t see why it’s wrong for drivers to move ahead in both lanes, especially since this is a special condition. The one situation that would irritates me is when there is a back-up on an exit ramp off a highway. It’s not uncommon for some jerk to drive all the way up to the front in the left (traveling)lane, and cut in at the last minute. That seems pretty rude.</p>
<p>This used to really annoy me until we had road construction on a heavily traveled road in our area. Everyone was irate about the traffic and people talked about it on our local newspaper’s forum. That’s when I learned about the efficiency of using both lanes until the cones forced you to merge. So I became one of the drivers that annoy you, and my commute was much faster. However, I was terribly uncomfortable doing something that conflicted with my “ethics”.</p>
<p>I loved queueing theory. So many real life applications you can use. Another is just let the elevator door close (unless your boss is coming).</p>
<p>I think Marilyn and kluge hit it spot-on, with the observation that which approach is better depends on the volume of traffic and the speeds in the lanes. </p>
<p>If traffic is heavy, and multiple lanes are essentially at a stand-still anyway, using both lanes and alternating makes sense. </p>
<p>If the traffic is moderate, so that it could all “fit” in the open lanes–moving at a decent speed, but without a lot of room to spare–then early merges (made when convenient) could keep the traffic flowing. In that case, waiting to merge will tend to create a bottleneck at the merge point, because traffic in the open lanes has to slow to let the mergers in. </p>
<p>If the traffic is light, then merging at the last moment is fine–there will be enough room to get into the open lanes without slowing the traffic in them.</p>
<p>Jumping ahead ( "zipping?) because I believe we have discussed this on CC before, and I with my H MANY times. In my community about a year ago, a second turn lane was added at a freeway entrance, and still, most folks politely line up in one, even extending into oncoming traffic, rather than “jumping” to the front of the second turning lane. It is interesting to think about how this reflects our personalities more than rational thought. I like Kluge’s interpretation. Has anybody read “Traffic; Why We Drive The Way We Do”?</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307264785[/url]”>http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307264785</a></p>
<p>"Questions for Tom Vanderbilt, author of Traffic</p>
<p>Q: Was this book really born on a New Jersey highway?
A: Yes, though it could have been any highway in the world, where countless drivers, driving on a crowded road that is about to lose a lane, have had to make a simple decision: When to merge. For my entire driving life, I had always merged “early,” thinking it was the polite and efficient thing to do. I viewed those who kept driving to the merge point, to the front of line, as selfish jerks who were making life miserable for the rest of us. I began to wonder: Were they really making things worse? Was I making things worse? Could merging be made easier? Why were there late mergers and early mergers, and why did people get so worked up about the whole thing? In that everyday moment I seemed to sense a vast, largely under-explored wilderness before me: Traffic.</p>
<p>Q: Is it true that the most common cause of stress on the highway is merging? Why of the myriad things to cause stress on the road is this at the top?
A: Merging is the most stressful single activity we face in everyday driving, according to a survey by the Texas Transportation Institute. People who have done studies at highway construction work zones have also told me of extraordinarily bad behavior, triggered by this simple act of trying to get two lanes of traffic into one. Sometimes, it’s simply the difficult mechanics of driving — trying to enter a stream of traffic flowing at a higher speed than you are, for example. Drivers, to quote a physicist who was actually talking about grains, are objects “who do not easily interact.” But I also think there’s something about the forward flow of traffic that makes us register progress only by our own unimpeded movement; as in life, we seem to register losses more powerfully than gains, and registering these losses boosts stress. "</p>
<p>
There are actually local interchanges which I avoid because I hate having to merge there. On one in particular, you come down a fairly steep short entrance ramp from an elevated section to merge with a level section to your left, and it’s difficult to see and judge the traffic on the level section so that you can decide when you are going to merge while you are coming down the ramp because of the jersey barrier walls (like a chute). Once you get to the bottom of the ramp, you only have a short distance and there is no place to go if you don’t merge right away, opening or not. You either merge or come to a stop, at which point it becomes all the more difficult to jump into the flowing traffic and you are at risk of being smacked from behind by another driver coming down the ramp and trying to merge.</p>
<p>After several highway fatalities, it is now the law in Oklahoma that you must merge at first notice.</p>
<p>Amesie, my husband feels as you do. I think it is quite rational, yet stressful! </p>
<p>I tend to assume that the driver might not have been paying attention to the situation, and got caught at the merge point, not necessarily meaning to cut everyone off - I might think this because I may have done such a thing in the past! </p>
<p>Now, if it IS just an aggressive driver, then I am happy that they are moving ahead, out of my way. I really hate an aggressive tailgater.</p>
<p>Speaking of PA, I was recently driving there, and was very impressed by how everyone tends to follow the rules. You guys in PA really do keep to the right when driving slower, you let lane-changers in, do not tailgate, etc. It was so much less stressful than I find driving in CA. What I hate most is when drivers won’t let you into their lane. So I always try to calm down and let people in!</p>
<p>Interesting… I used to agree with the OP but there is preponderance of evidence that supports the “zipper method” especially during heavy, slow-moving traffic. The problem it, often the highway signs will indicate that one lane is ending rather than that two lanes merge so people get really territorial about “their” lane.</p>
<p>What if everyone started merging 1 mile ahead of the actual merge, or 2 miles ahead? It would be pretty stupid to not use that much road. The same goes for not using 500 feet of road. We must embrace the “alternate merge” sign and stop being so territorial since we’re all driving on the same damn road! </p>
<p>It is NOT the same as staying in an “exit only” lane until it becomes a solid white line, or worse, a shoulder. In that case, you’re cheating.</p>