3 ms·

The problem is that traffic engineers disagree with your assessment of efficiency. You are effectively using aggressive driving (a crime) in order to circumvent

by elif 11y ago

The problem is that traffic engineers disagree with your assessment of efficiency. You are effectively using aggressive driving (a crime) in order to circumvent actual laws (yield to mergers) and to self-righteously defend the worldview that you have constructed in order to provide a superficially logically consistent explanation for your emotional frustration about losing out.

kazinator 11y ago
> traffic engineers disagree with your assessment of efficiency. Do they? > You are effectively using aggressive driving Not me, personally. (I ride a bicycle and use transit from time to time, and the occasional rental car on weekends and holidays: out of the vicious rush-hour traffic.) Fact is, if you throw a blinker, there will be those drivers who will reduce gaps and not let you in. Usually not in merge situations (as in, you can't join this freeway, bugger off!) but situations in where the lane change is not necessary (you're not entitled to swerve into this lane just because it's moving faster!). I agree with them; they are doing the right thing. It can usually be done safely, within the "two second rule" for following another vehicle, depending on speed. Be it right or wrong, safe or unsafe, if you want to outwit those who are doing it, you have to do the wrong thing an not blink. Not letting people join a freeway is despicable. (It happens too: "Hey, you can merge here ... just not in front of me, thank you very much!") The do-not-blink principle does not apply there, because it's obvious that you want to merge whether you blink or not, being in a merging lane and all! My comments don't apply to that situation at all.
- elif 11y ago
  I'm not sure I'm understanding your position very well. Are you saying that people exiting the slow lanes to enter the "moving lane" constitutes a hazard, and by punishing those actors by not letting them in, you are minimizing that hazard? If so, i'm inclined to agree philosophically. However, I don't believe anyone should impose their philosophy with 2 tons of steel. RE: traffic science, here are some references http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458019698 http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/03072... http://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/car-merging-psychology-dont-hate-the-sidezoomer.html http://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/car-merging-psychology-d...
cgriswald 11y ago
> in order to circumvent actual laws (yield to mergers) Mergers must yield to drivers already in the roadway. The only obligation those on the roadway have is to not speed up or slow down to prevent the merge.
- elif 11y ago
  You're right. I had misread the law.

by elif 11y ago

kazinator 11y ago

> traffic engineers disagree with your assessment of efficiency. Do they? > You are effectively using aggressive driving Not me, personally. (I ride a bicycle and use transit from time to time, and the occasional rental car on weekends and holidays: out of the vicious rush-hour traffic.) Fact is, if you throw a blinker, there will be those drivers who will reduce gaps and not let you in. Usually not in merge situations (as in, you can't join this freeway, bugger off!) but situations in where the lane change is not necessary (you're not entitled to swerve into this lane just because it's moving faster!). I agree with them; they are doing the right thing. It can usually be done safely, within the "two second rule" for following another vehicle, depending on speed. Be it right or wrong, safe or unsafe, if you want to outwit those who are doing it, you have to do the wrong thing an not blink. Not letting people join a freeway is despicable. (It happens too: "Hey, you can merge here ... just not in front of me, thank you very much!") The do-not-blink principle does not apply there, because it's obvious that you want to merge whether you blink or not, being in a merging lane and all! My comments don't apply to that situation at all.

elif 11y ago
I'm not sure I'm understanding your position very well. Are you saying that people exiting the slow lanes to enter the "moving lane" constitutes a hazard, and by punishing those actors by not letting them in, you are minimizing that hazard? If so, i'm inclined to agree philosophically. However, I don't believe anyone should impose their philosophy with 2 tons of steel. RE: traffic science, here are some references http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/0307277194/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458019698 http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/03072... http://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/car-merging-psychology-dont-hate-the-sidezoomer.html http://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/car-merging-psychology-d...

cgriswald 11y ago

> in order to circumvent actual laws (yield to mergers) Mergers must yield to drivers already in the roadway. The only obligation those on the roadway have is to not speed up or slow down to prevent the merge.

elif 11y ago
You're right. I had misread the law.