5 ms·

Poor blinker usage drives me nuts. Yes, there are some cases where, well, stuff happens. A driver forgets until the last minute. Many times I see them hit the

Poor blinker usage drives me nuts. Yes, there are some cases where, well, stuff happens. A driver forgets until the last minute. Many times I see them hit the blinker a split second after they've changed lanes. But far more frequently, I see the driver who is drifting between lanes at will, without thinking of the blinker, and seemingly without a care in the world. This is disturbing, especially since if I'm seeing the behavior, I'm behind the driver. That means it's my job to figure out where the winds will blow them next. Too many times I see idiots posting on Facebook or texting as I pass. Many times this is when we're both doing 65mph or more. Insane stuff. This isn't full auto driving, but every little step helps.

kazinator 11y ago
If you want to cut in, gaining an advantage over traffic, it behooves you to keep your intent undisclosed. Some drivers in the advantaged lane will make it difficult to merge if they see the intent, by closing the gaps. (Those who make it easy are enablers of cutting-in behavior, despised by everyone). It's safer if you don't announce your intent; you don't want to be encouraging the driver in the target lane to be trying to close the gap that you're swinging into. In most other normal situations, blink, damn it!
- superuser2 11y ago
  This is fucking ridiculous. Surely all drivers have to change lanes at some point to get where they're going; why do they all actively attempt to thwart other drivers from getting into the lanes they need?
  - kazinator 11y ago
    That's the competitive reality of driving in congested, urban areas. Drivers who cut in can save a lot of time over the course of a commute. They disrupt traffic flows and delay everyone else. So efficient traffic flows have to be defended. > Surely all drivers have to change lanes at some point to get where they're going; Yes, and some drivers like, for instance, to pass around 25 other cars who are making the same merge.
    - ghaff 11y ago
      Although zipper merges are supposedly more efficient :-) http://arstechnica.com/cars/2014/07/the-beauty-of-zipper-merging-or-why-you-should-drive-ruder/ http://arstechnica.com/cars/2014/07/the-beauty-of-zipper-mer...
      - kazinator 11y ago
        That is completely inapplicable to drivers who are already merged into the correct section of freeway and just want to zig-zag between lanes based on what they think is faster at any moment. If you're not one of these drivers, it benefits your trip time if you prevent their actions by not creating easy opportunities for them to slip in. If you are one of these drivers, it benefits your trip time if you successfully carry out the zig-zagging. To that end, it behooves you not to announce your intended moves. If you do, you reduce your opportunities, because you're relying on those who enable this behavior by letting zig-zagging drivers in. In other words, not-blinking is a rational game strategy.
    - superuser2 11y ago
      Okay, maybe we are talking about different things. Skipping a clearly identifiable line is one thing - the driver sees that they could just get in line and decides not to. I am more interested in why you would actively avoid making space when there is no clear way to get into the lane except by finding an open space.
      - kazinator 11y ago
        Because, for one thing, it's not someone's god-given right to move from a lane that is nearly standing still from one that is moving fast. "Gee whiz, I just joined this freeway, and damn it, I'm gonna edge my my way all the way to the fast moving left most lane at practically ninety degrees to the traffic flow."
        superuser2 11y ago
        If they are just changing lanes to find the one that's fastest at any moment, sure. If their destination is only reachable from that lane then yes, it is their right to use the public roadways regardless of how much it displeases you that you share them with other people.
  - elif 11y ago
    I don't think it's about time or efficiency at all. I think it has to do with perceived fairness and our self-righteous culture. The faster-moving disappearing lane gets an inherent advantage, which could have been renounced by merging too early. People feel cheated. The problem is that, objectively, people merging all over the place creates more traffic than a uniform zipper merge so we all suffer. In reality, the laws are very explicit (at least in GA where I live), and the person merging has priority. Anyone in an existing lane when a lane disappears is legally required to yield. Additionally, everyone is entitled to this same advantage so it's really not unfair at all.
    - kazinator 11y ago
      > at least in GA where I live [...] the person merging has priority [...] anyone in an existing lane when a lane disappears is legally required to yield. That sounds so crazy and contrary to everywhere I've been in the civilized world that I refuse to believe it (as you have written it) without some chapter and verse citation from the GA traffic code. If it is literally true, it means that in GA, I can drive down a merge ramp and not even look at what is coming down the freeway; they have to hit their brakes or swerve to adjust to what I'm doing. I'm in a merge lane, which ends, and thus I have priority over anyone in an existing lane that isn't ending! Any special rules about making it mandatory to let merging vehicles in have to be somehow crafted to they only apply to the obvious situations that they are intended for. Or they have to apply in special places where signage clearly indicates that two flows are merging such that neither has the right of way. For instance the "Form 1 Lane" traffic sign or whatever. "Form 1 lane" effectively means both lanes are ending, and a new one is starting with equal priority access.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - cgriswald 11y ago
      Relevant code: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-40/chapter-6/article-4/40-6-73/ http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-40/chapter-6/... "The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed." My search suggested highway on ramps are "other than another roadway." Also see: http://www.eregulations.com/georgia/driver/laws-governing-right-of-way/ http://www.eregulations.com/georgia/driver/laws-governing-ri... "If you are about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, private road or highway, you must stop and yield the right-of-way to all other pedestrians and vehicles already traveling on the roadway or sidewalk you are entering or crossing;"
- vkou 11y ago
  > (Those who make it easy are enablers of cutting-in behavior, despised by everyone). Heaven forbid we want to avoid a collision, instead of tailgating, so that you can get to wherever you're going two seconds sooner.
- Kluny 11y ago
  I've never found that to be an advantage. Usually if I indicate that I want to pull in, the driver behind me will immediately make room. On the rare occasions when they don't, it often turns out they had a good reason for keeping me out (like something they could see but I couldn't.) I'm comfortable assuming that's always the case.
- 1812Overture 11y ago
  This is how it is in Los Angeles. Lane space must be seized with an iron will. Freely giving it away is a sign of weakness that will be punished.

kazinator 11y ago

If you want to cut in, gaining an advantage over traffic, it behooves you to keep your intent undisclosed. Some drivers in the advantaged lane will make it difficult to merge if they see the intent, by closing the gaps. (Those who make it easy are enablers of cutting-in behavior, despised by everyone). It's safer if you don't announce your intent; you don't want to be encouraging the driver in the target lane to be trying to close the gap that you're swinging into. In most other normal situations, blink, damn it!

superuser2 11y ago
This is fucking ridiculous. Surely all drivers have to change lanes at some point to get where they're going; why do they all actively attempt to thwart other drivers from getting into the lanes they need?
- kazinator 11y ago
  That's the competitive reality of driving in congested, urban areas. Drivers who cut in can save a lot of time over the course of a commute. They disrupt traffic flows and delay everyone else. So efficient traffic flows have to be defended. > Surely all drivers have to change lanes at some point to get where they're going; Yes, and some drivers like, for instance, to pass around 25 other cars who are making the same merge.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    Although zipper merges are supposedly more efficient :-) http://arstechnica.com/cars/2014/07/the-beauty-of-zipper-merging-or-why-you-should-drive-ruder/ http://arstechnica.com/cars/2014/07/the-beauty-of-zipper-mer...
    - kazinator 11y ago
      That is completely inapplicable to drivers who are already merged into the correct section of freeway and just want to zig-zag between lanes based on what they think is faster at any moment. If you're not one of these drivers, it benefits your trip time if you prevent their actions by not creating easy opportunities for them to slip in. If you are one of these drivers, it benefits your trip time if you successfully carry out the zig-zagging. To that end, it behooves you not to announce your intended moves. If you do, you reduce your opportunities, because you're relying on those who enable this behavior by letting zig-zagging drivers in. In other words, not-blinking is a rational game strategy.
  - superuser2 11y ago
    Okay, maybe we are talking about different things. Skipping a clearly identifiable line is one thing - the driver sees that they could just get in line and decides not to. I am more interested in why you would actively avoid making space when there is no clear way to get into the lane except by finding an open space.
    - kazinator 11y ago
      Because, for one thing, it's not someone's god-given right to move from a lane that is nearly standing still from one that is moving fast. "Gee whiz, I just joined this freeway, and damn it, I'm gonna edge my my way all the way to the fast moving left most lane at practically ninety degrees to the traffic flow."
      - superuser2 11y ago
        If they are just changing lanes to find the one that's fastest at any moment, sure. If their destination is only reachable from that lane then yes, it is their right to use the public roadways regardless of how much it displeases you that you share them with other people.
- elif 11y ago
  I don't think it's about time or efficiency at all. I think it has to do with perceived fairness and our self-righteous culture. The faster-moving disappearing lane gets an inherent advantage, which could have been renounced by merging too early. People feel cheated. The problem is that, objectively, people merging all over the place creates more traffic than a uniform zipper merge so we all suffer. In reality, the laws are very explicit (at least in GA where I live), and the person merging has priority. Anyone in an existing lane when a lane disappears is legally required to yield. Additionally, everyone is entitled to this same advantage so it's really not unfair at all.
  - kazinator 11y ago
    > at least in GA where I live [...] the person merging has priority [...] anyone in an existing lane when a lane disappears is legally required to yield. That sounds so crazy and contrary to everywhere I've been in the civilized world that I refuse to believe it (as you have written it) without some chapter and verse citation from the GA traffic code. If it is literally true, it means that in GA, I can drive down a merge ramp and not even look at what is coming down the freeway; they have to hit their brakes or swerve to adjust to what I'm doing. I'm in a merge lane, which ends, and thus I have priority over anyone in an existing lane that isn't ending! Any special rules about making it mandatory to let merging vehicles in have to be somehow crafted to they only apply to the obvious situations that they are intended for. Or they have to apply in special places where signage clearly indicates that two flows are merging such that neither has the right of way. For instance the "Form 1 Lane" traffic sign or whatever. "Form 1 lane" effectively means both lanes are ending, and a new one is starting with equal priority access.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - cgriswald 11y ago
    Relevant code: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-40/chapter-6/article-4/40-6-73/ http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-40/chapter-6/... "The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed." My search suggested highway on ramps are "other than another roadway." Also see: http://www.eregulations.com/georgia/driver/laws-governing-right-of-way/ http://www.eregulations.com/georgia/driver/laws-governing-ri... "If you are about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, private road or highway, you must stop and yield the right-of-way to all other pedestrians and vehicles already traveling on the roadway or sidewalk you are entering or crossing;"
vkou 11y ago
> (Those who make it easy are enablers of cutting-in behavior, despised by everyone). Heaven forbid we want to avoid a collision, instead of tailgating, so that you can get to wherever you're going two seconds sooner.
Kluny 11y ago
I've never found that to be an advantage. Usually if I indicate that I want to pull in, the driver behind me will immediately make room. On the rare occasions when they don't, it often turns out they had a good reason for keeping me out (like something they could see but I couldn't.) I'm comfortable assuming that's always the case.
1812Overture 11y ago
This is how it is in Los Angeles. Lane space must be seized with an iron will. Freely giving it away is a sign of weakness that will be punished.