[hammock]

That was the clearest explanation of traffic I've come across. I'm inclined to buy into it (often it seems no one knows what they're talking about when it comes to traffic).

It also runs counter to what is commonly said about traffic jams. Most people focus on restoring smooth flow by doing things such as driving really slow to create space in front of you. This guy makes the case that "flow" is not really the important factor here.

For the record, I am "that guy" who runs all the way down to the end of the closed lane before merging over. Except I don't consider it an asshole move because as OP points out, I'm making the best use of the road ahead (while allowing fewer people to merge ahead of me)

[jessaustin]

For the record, I am "that guy" who runs all the way down to the end of the closed lane before merging over. Except I don't consider it an asshole move because as OP points out, I'm making the best use of the road ahead (while allowing fewer people to merge ahead of me)

In interstate travel I have noticed the increasing frequency of the "two trucks" maneuver, in which a big rig driven by someone philosophically opposed to your habit will drive in the "closed ahead" lane directly alongside another big rig in the "open but crawling" lane. Once the two trucks near the point of obstruction, the "open" driver is happy to let the "closed" one merge in, and there is no merging at the point of obstruction, which is both a safety and traffic-flow win.

I contend that the two truckers have done more to speed actual traffic flow (i.e. from a point before the obstacle to a point after it) than any number of assholes have. While at the beginning of the maneuver there is a solid line of fuming assholes behind the "closed" truck, by the time the obstacle has been reached all fuming asshole traffic has completely merged behind the "open" truck. Since it is only merging at the point of obstruction that slows traffic more than the obstruction itself already has, this is a net win.

Of course this maneuver must be repeated by successive pairs of truckers, and occasionally an asshole will "win" by racing forward between pairs, but that's minor.

[danielweber]

I wonder if good zipper merges would be more likely to happen if, instead of having lane 1 merge into lane 2, both lanes got merged into lane 1.5.

[jessaustin]

Yes, that probably would improve things. I could totally see that working if we had electronic (or other quickly reconfigurable) lane markings.

[libria]

Part of the problem is a lack of established convention. When a theme park opens its gates in the morning, we expect a large crowd to jostle in through a constricted entrance like a funnel. However, when we queue up at the bank, if the line extends past the cordon, nobody runs up to that point and stands shoulder to shoulder with other patrons; we maintain a single file.

Which of these rules applies to cars merging? There isn't a set standard, so people invent their own and perceive their rule is universally understood.

[dvanduzer]

There is a protocol. Even in heavy traffic, if you observe the following distance that the DMV tells everyone to observe when taking a driving test there is always room to merge.

[jessaustin]

...following distance that the DMV tells everyone to observe...

Who on earth leaves such a distance in stop-and-go traffic? I certainly haven't seen it. You might as well just assume that every driver will be safe, considerate, and wise.

[danielweber]

If traffic is stop-and-go, a zipper merge is trivial.

[jessaustin]

Ummm, not in my experience.

[protonfish]

Smoother traffic flow (as opposed to stop-and-go) may get you to your destination slightly slower due to added distance between cars, but that is not the only consideration. Gas mileage and car wear-and-tear are improved (and I suspect safety as well) when the driver is not alternately stomping on the accelerator and brakes.

[tucaz]

This is the one thing that really pisses me off. It gets worse when the lane that you are merging into has a line of cars going back almost a kilometer.

Doing this is like saying "Hey you idiots, look how smart I am" to everyone waiting for their way in the right lane.

[HelloMcFly]

I don't know why people get so mad about this. You use the term "right lane", but what does that mean? It only means what you want it to mean in a given situation.

The lane is open until it is not, and as long as both lanes are open they are both "right" (in the non-directional sense, obviously). Why rely on clearly nebulous (sometimes variable, sometimes non-existent) social norms rather than concrete traffic norms? Use the open lane, or don't complain when others do. It's not asshole behavior, it's common sense driving.

There is no reason to take offense while driving so long as people 1) follow the rules of the road and 2) do not endanger others with reckless driving. Using open lanes does neither, and it only inconveniences the people that refuse to use the roads as they are intended to be used.

[dvanduzer]

There are known choke points where traffic is forced to merge. There is the occasional tourist, but rush hour happens every weekday. People know about these merge points, see traffic backing up in all lanes, and will still jump into the lane about to end trying to rush around a few extra cars.

It's rude, and it demonstrably increases traffic.

[HelloMcFly]

Okay, when do you think people should start merging? Thirty feet before the "choke point"? One hundred feet? One mile? Three miles?

It's an arbitrary game, and everyone makes up their own "rules of decency" and gets mad when someone follows the rules of the road rather than the rules of their head. Yes, people "know" about choke points, but that doesn't mean it's wrong (or rude) to use open lanes. So long as those lanes are open, they are going to be used, so everyone may as well make use of the space.

Is it my fault that others choose not to use those lanes? No. Is it your fault that it upsets you? Yes. It's not rude. I'm not being impolite. I wish everyone would just follow the same set of rules so we could stop being mad at each other. Which set of rules should we follow? I vote against the ones that change in with the person you're asking.

Having said that, I don't really like when people change lanes just to jump ahead of one or two cars. It doesn't upset me and I think it's fair game so long as it's done safely, but I empathize with the distaste for that a little more.

[tucaz]

During "normal" periods where there are no choke points because there is no traffic these "smart" people do not have a problem staying in the "right" lane. However, when the traffic starts growing up almost everybody, except them, go into what looks like a queue, one car at a time, waiting for their turn to move forward/leave the road they start passing everybody on the "wrong" lane and merging at the end.

This is not only rude, but also blocks the other(s) lane(s) bringing traffic to where it wasn't before.

Its almost like say it's ok to pass in front of other people in the theater line.

[steamer25]

Using the available lane-age/real-estate to attempt negotiating a merge at speed and minimize the problems caused by inertia is a good thing. This works in at least two ways: 1) The backup is less likely to extend past an off-ramp as pointed out. 2) Human-nature. If everyone in the backed up lane were paying attention and trying to get off the road as soon as possible, this benefit wouldn't exist. However, some people use the opportunity afforded by the congestion to check their email or a map or adjust their hair/makeup or turn around to yell at the kids or just day-dream. When the car in front of them moves, it takes them several seconds to snap out of whatever is distracting them. In these cases, it's possible to slip in front of them without adding to the number of inert vehicles.

This is true of unstopped vehicles as well. Not everyone is comfortable driving at the maximum safe speed. In fact, where I live, fines are enforced on all state roads from 6 to 13 MPH below engineering guidelines. Even so, many people choose to travel even slower than allowed by graceless statute. While these patient souls approach the bottleneck, several of the swift may de-queue themselves to the benefit of everyone who would otherwise wait behind them.

Oftentimes, the road hasn't actually reached saturation--it's just a compound case of live-lock and if people use the full measure of available lanes (instead of stopping at the first sign that says "Road Work Five Miles Ahead"), they have a greater opportunity of resolving the contention without promoting a cascaded slow down.

Of course, all of this is an edge-case. As the OP alludes, when the road is actually saturated, the real solution involves either decreasing demand for or increasing the supply of throughput at the chokepoint. Mere bickering and maneuvering will not avail anyone.

[cecilpl]

What pisses me off is having to wait in a kilometer-long line of people merging when what I really want to do is turn right down a side street.

Please keep that line as short as possible by using all the lanes available.

[jessaustin]

I thought we were talking about freeway/tollway/highway traffic? If there are side streets, that's a different situation.

[bryanlarsen]

What pisses me off is having to wait in a kilometer-long line of people blocking all available lanes when what I really want to do is turn right down a side street.

Please leave exit lanes open by merging as soon as possible.

[j-kidd]

If HelloMcFly originates from the "open lane", I am indifferent to where he decides to merge into the "right lane", as long as he doesn't force anyone to unnecessary slam their brake.

What really piss me off are drivers who move from the "right lane" into the "open lane", and then merge back after cutting perhaps 5, 6 cars.

[Dirlewanger]

Except I don't consider it an asshole move because as OP points out, I'm making the best use of the road ahead (while allowing fewer people to merge ahead of me)

Which solves nothing but to piss off everyone else behind you who has waited because ultimately someone will let you merge in (which they flat out shouldn't) and said behavior will only encourage others to do so in the future which inevitably will piss off even more people.

[StavrosK]

Yep. It's just like saying "I just jump to the front of the queue because I'm minimizing time spent waiting". Yeah, for you, whereas everyone else has to wait N more seconds.

[protonfish]

Nobody is forcing you to stay in the congested lane. It was your choice and you have no reason to think everyone else has to do the same. If it's a legal lane, then drive in it.

[zenzen]

That's fine if you can safely merge into the exit lane without slowing down traffic in the non-exit lane.

Here's when it's not OK: cars in the exit lane are traveling at 2mph. You drive up next to the line, slow down from 55mph to 2mph and wait with your blinker on for someone to let you in. Now you've slowed a second 55mph lane down to 2mph, blocking thru traffic and creating a dangerous stoppage in the non-exit lane.

Seriously, don't do this.

[notacoward]

I see this all the time in Massachusetts - Route 2 West to Route 95 North, about a mile from my home. At rush hour there are always enough jerks playing the "merge at the last minute" game that only the left lane is still moving significantly, and sometimes not even then. Every once in a while there's an accident because people who were unaware of this "congest all the lanes" behavior didn't see a blocked left lane soon enough.

You're right, it's a major dick move. It's reckless and endangering; police should treat it accordingly.

[j-kidd]

Perhaps a more advanced camera technology that detects asshole driving behavior instead of speeding? Rich dudes pay to get ahead. Increased revenue for the police department. Improved traffic. Win-win for everyone.

[mavhc]

Have you blocked through traffic? Only if the number of cars per second drops. Also as there's going to be a queue of, say 1000 cars behind the merge point, it's better than the queue doesn't extend backwards into some other area of traffic, causing people who are turning off before the merge point to become involved in the slow traffic

[Fuzzwah]

Its a legal lane to no where. By using it you're then relying on the good graces of one of those chumps you just passed. They don't need to let you back in. They're in the legal lane to somewhere, you just got no where really quickly.

[protonfish]

You don't have to let me in. I am sure someone in front of you will. Then you have the right to throw a little hissy-fit because of having to live with the repercussions of your poor life decisions.

[Fuzzwah]

My response isn't to throw a hissy-fit.

I catch public transport to work. Mostly because I'd rather have a nap on the way to and from work than deal with wankers like you.

[kmm]

> For the record, I am "that guy" who runs all the way down to the end of the closed lane before merging over. Except I don't consider it an asshole move because as OP points out, I'm making the best use of the road ahead (while allowing fewer people to merge ahead of me)

Asshole move? I don't understand. I don't live in the US, but here it is encouraged to act like this! It's called a zipper merge. I remember public messages on the TV encouraging this behaviour, and there's road signs near merging lanes.

What's so asshole about this?