🔥 Yore driving, Deez roasted Nuts! 🔥



  • So I'm approaching an intersection while driving car #1 and I see cars #2 and #3 waiting for me.

    Since I'm in no rush — [size=20]because I just had to slow down for a pedestrian crossing and because I could see traffic was slow ~50m after the intersection due to another intersection up ahead [/size] — , I signal them to go ahead. They should be able to comfortably cross the intersection without interfering with each other's paths, well before I reach the intersection. They react fast and do as I visualized. Everything's hunky-dory.

    Now car #4 figures they can make it in time to cross the intersection before I arrive. And sure, given my current speed they can. I'm already slowing down for cars #2 and #3, so that's fine.

    Except... car #3 has a brain fart and decides to make a U-turn.
    Right.
    There.

    Never mind that the street's not wide enough, besides being four kinds of illegal (at the exit of an intersection, over a solid line, on top of a crosswalk [not pictured], during heavy traffic). So now everyone's gridlocked.

    What the fuck is wrong with people?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @Zecc said:

    What the fuck is wrong with people?



  • @Zecc said:

    Since I'm in no rush, I signal them to go ahead.

    I HATE YOU.

    @Zecc said:

    What the fuck is wrong with people?

    You.

    You have the right of way. You can't give it away. You fuck up everyone's expectations when you do that.



  • I'm not sure what this picture is supposed to depict? To me it looks like pretty much all the people on the right lane are doing it wrong because there are only 4 cars on the left lane.

    In case you did not know, merging should be done as late as possible.

    In fact, there are so few people who remember this bit from their driver's education that states have now begun to put up signs saying: "Don't merge yet. Wait [800/600/400/200] more meters" and "You can begin merging now".



  • @Zecc said:

    Since I'm in no rush, I signal them to go ahead.

    You're an asshole. You're doing more harm than good by not obeying the normal traffic laws, even if you think you're being "nice".

    @Zecc said:

    What the fuck is wrong with people?

    You caused the problem.



  • No.

    You merge at the last possible minute, so that the maximum number of cars can fit on the pavement.

    The dickholes are the people at the merge point who don't leave enough space for cars in the other lane to zipper-in.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    so that the maximum number of cars can fit on the pavement.

    Cars should be on the road, not the pavement. The latter is what pedestrians walk on and cyclists tend to (illegally) ride on instead of the road.

    Picture of a pavement (left), with cars parked on the road (right):

    https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/Pavement,_Bowes_Road,London_N11-geograph.org.uk-_913331.jpg

    <!-- :tropical_fish: -->


  • @PJH said:

    Cars should be on the road, not the pavement. The latter is what pedestrians walk on and cyclists tend to (illegally) ride on instead of the road.

    You need to learn English, specifically the word "sidewalk".


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @blakeyrat said:

    You need to learn English, specifically the word "sidewalk".

    That was English.

    Sidewalk is American.

    In fact, given the propensity to remove vowels in American, I'm surprised it doesn't resemble Welsh and is spelled sydwlk.




  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    Your point?



  • It does not get any more British than this:

    Pavement, in civil engineering, durable surfacing of a road, airstrip, or similar area.



  • @Rhywden said:

    It does not get any more British than this:

    Any more British than Encyclopædia Britannica which is published in America?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @loopback0 said:

    which is published in American?

    HTH, HAND, etc...



  • Well, the simple fact that they're consistently using the British spelling of words (e.g. "harbour") would somewhat lessen that particular argument.


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @Rhywden said:

    British spelling of words

    You know, I always thought I was a little french for doing that on accident. Never knew it was an English thing.



  • Boot versus trunk. :p


  • Impossible Mission Players - A

    @Rhywden said:

    Boot versus trunk. :stuck_out_tongue:

    I've always assumed this was an argument in the vein of "Do you spit or swallow?".
    Now I know it's about clothing design. :fish_cake:



  • No one says sidoolk.



  • @PJH said:

    I'm surprised it doesn't resemble Welsh and is spelled sydwlk.

    The company that constructed that? That's their name.



  • @PJH said:

    Your point?

    The British are weird?


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    @PJH said:

    Cars should be on the road, not the pavement.

    Have a :pendant: :fa_flag:. In Blakey's sentence, "pavement" meant "road". You know what a road that's not dirt or gravel is called? Paved.


  • Discourse touched me in a no-no place

    E_NO_REPRO



  • @PJH said:

    > Under the rules oven gloves will be tested to show they "possess an appropriate coefficient of transmission of incident heat flux and be sufficiently incombustible to preclude any risk of spontaneous ignition under the foreseeable conditions of use".

    Well, darn. No more manufacturing cheap paper-thin nitrocellulose gloves for us...

    @Rhywden said:

    In case you did not know, merging should be done as late as possible.

    You...are part of the problem.

    Merge means, "Match speed and move into an opening in the adjacent lane." Not, "Quick, floor it down to the end of the merge lane to get ahead of four whole cars; then be forced to stop; then wind up with everyone else having to stop (making everyone late) when some sucker kindly soul stops to let your insufferable tail in."

    You're lucky everyone else isn't me, because if everyone were me you'd sit at the end of that lane until they moved the cones or your car disintegrated into a rusty puddle (whichever came first).

    (I lie, because soft-hearted ol' me frequently winds up being the kindly soul who lets people like that in.)



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    You...are part of the problem.

    Merge means, "Match speed and move into an opening in the adjacent lane." Not, "Quick, floor it down to the end of the merge lane to get ahead of four whole cars; then be forced to stop; then wind up with everyone else having to stop (making everyone late) when some sucker kindly soul stops to let your insufferable tail in."

    You're lucky everyone else isn't me, because if everyone were me you'd sit at the end of that lane until they moved the cones or your car disintegrated into a rusty puddle (whichever came first).

    (I lie, because soft-hearted ol' me frequently winds up being the kindly soul who lets people like that in.)

    Okay, first of all: Do you guys have actual driving schools? If you don't it's no wonder that you're ill-educated about this. If you do your driver's ed either did a piss-poor job or you didn't pay attention.

    First of all, here's the relevant part of the code of law:

    „Ist auf Straßen mit mehreren Fahrstreifen für eine Richtung das durchgehende Befahren eines Fahrstreifens nicht möglich oder endet ein Fahrstreifen, ist den am Weiterfahren gehinderten Fahrzeugen der Übergang auf den benachbarten Fahrstreifen in der Weise zu ermöglichen, dass sich diese Fahrzeuge unmittelbar vor Beginn der Verengung jeweils im Wechsel nach einem auf dem durchgehenden Fahrstreifen fahrenden Fahrzeug einordnen können (Reißverschlussverfahren).“

    § 7 Abs. 4 StVO

    Now, codes of law are not exactly known for containing unneeded words - lawyers would have a field day if they did so. I'll translate the part which has a direct impact on this discussion here:

    dass sich diese Fahrzeuge unmittelbar vor Beginn der Verengung [...] einordnen können

    translates to

    that these vehicles can merge immediately at the beginning of the constriction

    In case that didn't make it through translation: "unmittelbar" has a connotation of "without blank gaps".

    Secondly, nowhere did I state that you "were to floor it down to the end of the lane".

    First of all, I said: "As late as possible". This means that the traffic should flow on both lanes up until the constriction and then merge.

    Secondly, if you were able to "floor it down" then everybody already has done it wrong because this should not be possible if everyone did it right. Again: This long open stretch of lane is created by the simple fact that people sometimes don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to traffic rules.

    And of course, then your zealotry-like "Now I'll show ya!" attitude only exacerbates the problem - it's precisely because of this "You dared drive up unto the end? I won't let you merge!" that the rest of the people who remember how to merge are disinclined to do so because jackasses like you don't know what's what.

    In short: You are the cause of traffic jams.



  • @blakeyrat said:

    You're an asshole. You're doing more harm than good by not obeying the normal traffic laws, even if you think you're being "nice".

    You weren't there. You don't know what distance I was from the intersection, what speed I was traveling at or for how long I saw them waiting at the intersection.

    But don't make that stop you from being ignorantly judgemental.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    Merge means, "Match speed and move into an opening in the adjacent lane."

    Right; but you do it AS LATE AS POSSIBLE, not 20 car-lengths from the actual merge point.

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    Not, "Quick, floor it down to the end of the merge lane to get ahead of four whole cars;

    People wouldn't have room to "floor it" if morons like you wouldn't merge 20 cars earlier than you should.

    @CoyneTheDup said:

    You're lucky everyone else isn't me, because if everyone were me you'd sit at the end of that lane until they moved the cones or your car disintegrated into a rusty puddle (whichever came first).

    So here's a question: if in your weird world, if you're not supposed to merge at the actual end of the lane, how far back is it "ok" to merge? Is there a marker somewhere indicating that? Or do people just have to instinctively know? If the latter, does everybody instinctively know the same distance? How is that coordinated?

    Or, from another angle, in your weird world, what's the purpose of the 20 cars' worth of pavement between where people are supposed to merge, and where the cones are placed? Is it reserved for, like, tailgating parties, or...?



  • @Zecc said:

    You weren't there.

    Correct.

    @Zecc said:

    You don't know what distance I was from the intersection, what speed I was traveling at or for how long I saw them waiting at the intersection.

    Ah; but I do know you gave up your right-of-way because you said so. And that was the wrong thing to do.

    @Zecc said:

    But don't make that stop you from being ignorantly judgemental.

    I won't.



  • @CoyneTheDup said:

    Merge means, "Match speed and move into an opening in the adjacent lane." Not, "Quick, floor it down to the end of the merge lane to get ahead of four whole cars; then be forced to stop; then wind up with everyone else having to stop (making everyone late) when some sucker kindly soul stops to let your insufferable tail in."

    The problem is that some earlier idiots made a single lane, moving the point of the merge and the end of general congestion back, possibly causing more problems at a previous intersection or exit or whatever. Additionally, merging early makes the through lane slower.

    I understand that once the problem exists our aversion to cutting in line takes over, but that's really just perpetuating the problem.



  • @Rhywden said:

    First of all, I said: "As late as possible". This means that the traffic should flow on both lanes up until the constriction and then merge.

    Secondly, if you were able to "floor it down" then everybody already has done it wrong because this should not be possible if everyone did it right. Again: This long open stretch of lane is created by the simple fact that people sometimes don't know their ass from their elbow when it comes to traffic rules.

    And of course, then your zealotry-like "Now I'll show ya!" attitude only exacerbates the problem - it's precisely because of this "You dared drive up unto the end? I won't let you merge!" that the rest of the people who remember how to merge are disinclined to do so because jackasses like you don't know what's what.

    In short: You are the cause of traffic jams.

    No, the cause of traffic jams are the people who are trying to pass in the left lane when they should be matching speed to the traffic in the right lane so that they can eventually merge. That is what causes the animosity toward people who drive up to the end: not that they drive up to the end, but that they're passing a bunch of cars whilst doing so.

    I don't care if you want to wait until the last minute to merge, as long as you're also matching speed with the other lane. If you're matching speed and trying to merge, then I'll make space to let you zipper yourself in. But if you're trying to pass as many people as possible before merging, my attitude switches to fuck you.

    So if you're in the left lane and there's a merge coming up, and if you have a whole bunch of open space in front of you because everyone in front of you did it wrong, then take a stand on what you supposedly believe: match speeds to the traffic in the right lane. Don't be another asshole who zooms up as fast as he can.

    Anyway, there is a very good reason to not wait until the last possible moment to merge: it's entirely possible that even if you're being nice the person in the right lane will be an asshole and not make the space for you to merge. Then you have to stop, which makes it even more difficult to merge because now the right lane's moving and you're stopped. So traffic gets even more screwed up because you got stuck at the end of the merge lane stopped and you have no room to accelerate to match speeds so that you can merge properly.



  • Again, you're just plain wrong. You merge at the last moment (and of course match speeds).

    I'm done arguing with you - any driver's educator, traffic expert and knowledgable person will disagree with you.

    If you were right then we wouldn't have those traffic signs: "Wait with merging, you moron!"

    I'm done discussing this with you. Please educate yourself on how traffic works.

    @anotherusername said:

    it's entirely possible that even if you're being nice the person in the right lane will be an asshole and not make the space for you to merge.

    Yes. And because of morons like you we now just doubled the size of the queue on the right side which causes traffic jams.



  • @boomzilla said:

    I understand that once the problem exists our aversion to cutting in line takes over

    I have not observed this to exist outside of elementary school.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Again, you're just plain wrong. You merge at the last moment (and of course match speeds).

    I didn't say not to. I just said not to be an asshole. Match speeds. Then, when you need to merge, merge.

    If the left lane is moving fast enough for you to pass instead of doing what you yourself admit you're supposed to do - i.e. matching speeds - then you be the person who does the right thing and fixes it.

    Anyway, most of the problem occurs on things like exit ramps, where the traffic in the left lane doesn't have to merge right unless it wants to exit. Assholes see that it's backed up a mile on the highway in the right lane so they zip past all that in the left lane and then try to push their way in at the very beginning of the exit ramp.



  • @anotherusername said:

    Anyway, most of the problem occurs on things like exit ramps, where the traffic in the left lane doesn't have to merge right unless it wants to exit. Assholes see that it's backed up a mile on the highway in the right lane so they zip past all that in the left lane and then try to push their way in at the very beginning of the exit ramp.

    This is a totally different situation than lanes going away.



  • I know, but it's quite a bit more common and bears mention.



  • Anyway, in my experience, when a lane is going away the bottleneck is almost always the speed of the traffic in the one lane going forward. It usually has nothing to do with how smoothly or poorly the traffic is merging before the bottleneck. Merging more efficiently won't make that jam move any faster because the traffic in front of it isn't moving fast enough for it to help any. Meanwhile, yahoos jockeying for position in the merging lanes just manage to piss everyone else off.



  • Your "experience" is wrong. Oh well, we already established that.

    If the bottleneck is not moving fast enough and people are merging 2 km ahead then you now have the bottleneck moving slow and the 2 km in front of the bottleneck moving slow.

    Which will rapidly become 10 km.



  • You're talking about a situation where merging is the bottleneck (slowest point).

    When merging is the bottleneck, both lanes cram up and travel at roughly the same speed. So the issue of someone zipping up to the front is moot; they can't. They're blocked and have to travel at basically the same speed as everyone else.

    I'm talking about a situation where the traffic in the one-lane section is the bottleneck.

    When the traffic in the one-lane section is the bottleneck, it doesn't matter where or how you merge.

    Here's the point: if the left lane is basically empty, then traffic has already merged, and if it's still slow, then merging wasn't the bottleneck. The speed of the traffic going forward in the one-lane section is the bottleneck. So we're in my scenario, not yours, and you being an asshole will accomplish nothing useful.



  • There have been studies on this. Late merging is the optimum solution.

    Run along now.

    @anotherusername said:

    Here's the point: if the left lane is basically empty, then traffic has already merged, and if it's still slow, then merging wasn't the bottleneck.

    No, you're confusing cause and effect. Also: You obviously never heard of the shockwave theory for traffic.

    This theory also explains phantom traffic jams, for example.



  • @Rhywden said:

    There have been studies on this. Late merging is the optimum solution.

    I'm not saying that it isn't the optimum solution. I'm saying that in the average case, the difference between your optimum solution and the thing you're condemning is basically nil.

    Look, I understand what you're describing. I've been in situations where traffic slows down to merge, then immediately speeds back up again after merging. However, I rarely see anyone cutting to the front in that situation, because then the traffic naturally tends to merge late and all the lanes before the bottleneck are moving at roughly the same speed. So basically, your optimal solution is what happens anyway. Far more often the traffic's also slow and backed up in the one-lane section right after the merge, and that's also usually the situation when the traffic tends to merge early.

    @Rhywden said:

    No, you're confusing cause and effect. Also: You obviously never heard of the shockwave theory for traffic.

    No, you are. Please explain how you think slow traffic after the lanes have merged is somehow caused by badly merging traffic, and not the other way around. You're basically saying that idiots behind you are the reason why the idiots in front of you aren't moving fast enough.

    Shockwaves don't work in that direction.



  • Why am I arguing with you again? Listen, dude, you're simply wearing giant horseblinders which make you incapable of even remotely acknowledging the fact that sometimes things simply don't work you assume they do.

    This is one of those cases.

    Your simplistic approach simply is wrong. And, no, it "does not happen anyway".

    I'm done arguing with you.



  • I'm not trying to argue with the fact that a zipper merge is the most efficient way to merge. I never was, and I've said as much.

    For a zipper merge to work properly, both lanes have to be moving at exactly the same speed. So if you in your lane are moving exactly the same speed as I am in my line, then I have no problem with you being there.



  • And if both lanes are used equally then they will move at the same speed. Differentials only occur because of idiots merging early which allows people to speed in the first place.

    I already said that. Weren't you listening?



  • Idiots merge early because traffic isn't speeding up after the merge.

    They don't want to try to merge into a lane of closely-packed, slow-moving cars.

    Zipper merging won't fix that. Not one bit.



  • Actually, it would fix that if you idiots only used it.

    Zipper merging creates order whereas your early-merging system is chaotic and will cause sudden stops and force people to brake.

    My commute to school hand one such congestion and after they put up the signs, the difference was noticable.



  • @Rhywden said:

    Actually, it would fix that if you idiots only used it.

    Zipper merging creates order whereas your early-merging system is chaotic and will cause sudden stops and force people to brake.

    No it would not. No amount of merging better can make the traffic after the merge go faster when its rate is being limited by something other than the merge. Like, say, rubbernecking at the construction.

    Necessarily, the traffic in the one-lane section needs to go a multiple of the speed of the traffic in the multi-lane section. Even more so because the distance between cars at that speed needs to be higher. If the traffic in the one-lane section isn't going at least twice as fast as the average speed in a two-lane section that's merging, it will back up and you can't blame that on improper merging.

    @Rhywden said:

    My commute to school hand one such congestion and after they put up the signs, the difference was noticable.

    I don't doubt you. There are situations that benefit greatly from zipper merge, but when traffic is stacked up after the merge is not one of those situations.



  • :moving_goal_post:

    Also, you're wrong. The queue in front of the merge will be only half as long which is not an insignificant matter which you choose to ignore.

    Whatever.



  • @Rhywden said:

    :moving_goal_post:

    I'm describing the situation where traffic's already merged and still stacked up. Which, by definition, is the situation if you're in the left lane, zipping past already merged traffic which is stacked up. I'm not :moving_goal_post: at all.

    @Rhywden said:

    Also, you're wrong. The queue in front of the merge will be only half as long which is not an insignificant matter which you choose to ignore.

    While it might add a few seconds onto everyone's commute, it doesn't change the throughput of the highway, and you passing everyone to try to get the merge point up to where it belongs is just going to piss them off, making their behavior even more chaotic.

    So if you really want to fix it, match speed and align yourself to the nearest opening, then maintain that position while still in your lane, to the point where you feel like you're supposed to do your zipper merge. Then smoothly merge into the opening you found.



  • Again, you're wrong. The traffic will flow more evenly unlike the fits and starts early merging will cause because there's no order as to when someone will merge (which in turn cause the shockwaves I talked of).

    As a result, the throughput will go up.



  • If the traffic after merging is stacked up, then the way you merge does not affect the throughput.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to What the Daily WTF? was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.