h a l f b a k e r yWith moderate power, comes moderate responsibility.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
| |
I would also like shoulder spikes that deploy to shred the
tires of anyone passing a traffic jam on the shoulder.
Unless they have a really good reason, of course. |
|
| |
Wish I could vote twice on this one. I'm tired of people who have all the room in the world to merge and don't until the little white line forces them to. |
|
| |
I'd settle for being notified earlier. That way I can get off the highway and go around the blockage. |
|
| |
baked in toronto, in the form of real cops. i see them regularly at one particular spot on my way home from work, waiting for last-minute mergers, there's usually two or three cops, so that practically everybody who does it gets nailed. the actual offence is "crossing a solid white line" which is a no-no in the province of ontario. the best part is the fact that the road is uphill until the point of the merge, and the white line starts quite far back, so anyone who thinks they'll save a little time gets a nice surprise when they crest the hill and see two cruisers sitting there waiting for them. |
|
| |
jefm, where did you get the idea that problematic driving practices warrant first a warning and then a ticket, rather than instant but slow, torturous death by flaming gore-gouging dismemberment followed by eternal damnation, and DO NOT PASS GO? Surely not from reading the postings on this site. |
|
| |
What beauxeault said. It's good to see a car idea that isn't just another lame road-rage-inspired fantasy about inflicting GBH on anyone who "DOES NOT MEASURE UP TO *MY* GODLIKE DRIVING SKILLS AND RIGHTEOUS DEMANDS!!!", for a change. As a pedestrian, I usually have my souwester and fish-handling gloves on when I enter the Car posting area, with a dead kipper a-ready for the slapping. I'm happy to croissant this idea, though. |
|
| |
Even worse than the people who merge at the last minute are the people who encourage them by letting them merge. |
|
| |
Sadly, people just accept this terrible driving. I feel like I'm the only one who honks when people do this at the transition (and a fat lot of good it does--my horn just sort of beeps). If no one lets them know that they're driving like idiots, then they accept it as normal (I'm hoping this doesn't come accross as self-righteous, I just really hate the dangerous drivers and hate the fact that it is so common). I am thoroughly amazed that there aren't more accidents caused by jerks like that. |
|
| |
A similar situation occurs during lane closures on Motorways and Dual carriageways. Occasionally a lorry driver will pull into the middle of the two outside lanes when in the coned section, usually 1/4 to 1/2 mile from merge, prior to merging (at this point the traffic is crawling).
I take great delight in the increasingly furious antics of people in the outside lane trying to *force* the truck to move over. It also manages to make the traffic flow increase. |
|
| |
I suspect that this might conflict with another existing rule, and probably why they're not doing it already. |
|
| |
Through hearsay in New York State, I believe it is the law that traffic on an expressway must yield to oncoming traffic. Although initially weird sounding, this is a more logical choice. The options that a motorist who is already on the expressway has consist of refuse to yield, slow down to yield, or change lanes to yield. The oncoming motorist has options of successfully merging or coming to a stop. Someone who has to slow down to yield causes a smaller speed differential between vehicles on the road than a person stopped waiting to merge, so that is the preferred choice. |
|
| |
Anyway, I suspect the same is true when a lane ends. It is the responsibility of the continuing lane to yield to the merging lane. |
|
| |
Unfortunately, this situation deteriorates for a perfectly law abiding citizen: to follow the law you should stop in the continuing lane and allow all traffic from the merging lane to continue. This has the same result as the scenario that was supposed to be avoided where the merged lane is halted and the contining lane continues. |
|
| |
The failure scenario occurs when the line of cars to merge is long. Most people think it is best to merge early and that everyone else should do the same. In point of fact, it would be most efficient if all lanes of traffic continued right to the point of the merge and then alternated one car at a time. I think it would be better policy to create this scenario and encourage people to follow it. |
|
| |
I agree that as it stands now, there is a common courtesy that causes people to merge early, but this leaves a great incentive for people to be discourteous. In essence, there is no place for courtesy on the road--if you saw someone in a hurry who was stopped by a red light (perhaps they yelled to you that they were having a baby) would you stop at a green light and wave them through? You wouldn't (or shouldn't) because it violates the rules of the road and confuses the other drivers and would probably cause an accident. The reason is you put courtesy ahead of the rules. |
|
| |
In conclusion, although I don't like that people are discourteous, this isn't the right solution to the problem. I'll have to rank it negative. Perhaps better driver education would be a more appropriate response. |
|
| |
Last minute merging is acutally the propper thing to do, its the early mergers that slow things down, and speed things up for the last minute mergers. Every time a car merges early he increases the number of cars in the lane he is merging into thus slowing it down and conversely speeding up the lane she came from. Early mergers subscribe to the idea that proper coordinated merging can eliminate delays and backups, but it's just junk science. completely false. |
|
| |
The best policy is to merge as late as will allow an even mix of traffic in both lanes. If the exit lane is empty, merge early. If it's packed solid, merge late. And I don't have to imagine driving I-405 and merging onto the 167 offramp - I do it every day. |
|
| |
If everyone merges early, then it gives a clear run to the "cheaters" who trigger traffic jams by racing to the head of the line and then forcing their way in. Cheaters will screw things up unless there are cops monitoring every single merge zone. But if most drivers merge late, then the whole "cheater" issue vanishes. |
|
| |
Hey, this invention might work if reversed! Photograph and ticket any driver in a merge zone who closes up their forward gap and prevents other cars from merging ahead of them. If the majority of drivers allow ANYONE to merge ahead of them, then everything flows smoothly. (By 'anyone', this includes cheaters who race to the head of the line.) There will always be "cheaters." Our choice is simple: block the cheaters and create a traffic jam, or keep traffic flowing smootly by ALWAYS ALLOWING THE CARS IN THE INCOMING LANE TO MERGE WHENEVER THEY WANT, early or late. |
|
| |
and its not as though it is a big deal if they miss the turn-off - just take the next exit, do a U-turn and re take the exit on the other side of the expressway. unless the engineers who planned the expressway botched the job. (skin them alive, I say!) |
|
| |
/Occasionally a lorry driver will pull
into the middle of the two outside lanes
when in the coned section, usually 1/4
to 1/2 mile from merge/ |
|
| |
Yeah, I'm a truck driver and I've done
this myself. It's frustrating for us as we
have to use the left hand lane all the
time so all the cars pushing in up front
hold us back. |
|
| |
Imagine waiting in a line at the
supermarket - you wouldn't just run up
the line to the till and push in would
you? If you tried that here you'd get a
slap! |
|
| |