4 ms·

That feels pretty legit to me. I don't remember reading that, but when I drive a car and I've got more than 2 lanes to choose from, I usually end up in the midd

That feels pretty legit to me. I don't remember reading that, but when I drive a car and I've got more than 2 lanes to choose from, I usually end up in the middle. The right lane always has people merging, either to enter or exit, or trucks lumbering along at 45. The left lane always has someone wanting to do 90 in a 55. Middle is the smoothest, from a traffic flow perspective. On a motorcycle it's all about riding between the left-most and its neighbor. More cars expect you there because most motorcycles ride there, so they make more room. The next lane-line is a death trap, from cars in the second lane moving over for a motorcyclist over there.

rahimnathwani 7y ago
"The right lane always has people merging, either to enter or exit, or trucks lumbering along at 45." Interesting perspective. I feel a little differently: - cars meeting to enter shouldn't affect you, because it's their responsibility to get to the right speed and time their entry to a gap; an entering car should never cause you to need to change speed or direction - an exiting car shouldn't affect you, because there's usually no reason for them to slow down before exit - you can overtake the slow trucks when you encounter them: just change lanes to overtake, and then pull back into the right lane afterwards Driving in the middle lane is optimal from each driver's own perspective but, globally, it reduces road capacity and increases journey times.
- NoSorryCannot 7y ago
  This seems a little bit idealistic. People merging onto the highway are supposed to reach highway speed before attempting to merge, but they very often do not do that. And they're supposed to to find a gap, but there may not be one or other drivers may deliberately try to deny them one. The merging lane may be very short. The merging car may start to change lanes even if it's not safe to do so. Congestion may require more deliberately courteous behavior. The right lane often has many trucks clustered together and rote exercise of the keep-right rule will require an excessive amount of lane changing. And on a limited access highway, lane changing is the most dangerous routine maneuver so one should be thoughtful of balancing lane changing with expediency. And the idea that a driver has no responsibility to accommodate another merging driver, if applied strictly, also means that one cannot always leave the right lane at will, because driver in the left lane are not permitting. So you change speed a lot, which is rough on fuel efficiency and precludes cruise control if it's adaptive. Being religious about keep-right is kind of miserable on a congested highway, especially one with a differential of speed speed limits depending on vehicle type. The people most steadfast about traffic laws get punished at the pleasure of people who flout them, which doesn't seem correct.
  - rahimnathwani 7y ago
    "The people most steadfast about traffic laws get punished at the pleasure of people who flout them, which doesn't seem correct." Exactly. Each person acting in their own self-interest causes a reduction in road capacity and longer journey times. Those who try to stay in the right-most lane that's going their speed don't gain anything for themselves, as they only increase road capacity for people behind them.
    - NoSorryCannot 7y ago
      That's a bit of a cherry pick. I don't disagree with upholding the principle of the social good. But two things. Tragedy of the commons. You're arguing that some drivers should elect to have poor travel times to, frankly, accommodate those who are breaking the law. Maybe the law should be changed (different speed limits are bad) and more zealously enforced. Second, your greatest responsibility on the road is safety and accident avoidance, not expediency. It is not defensible to change lanes or refuse to accommodate another driver when it may cause an accident that could have been avoided. Changing lanes or refusing to accommodate is least safe when there is a lot of congestion. I don't know the best way to drive. I don't always obey the law and neither do I only do those things that give me individually an immediate. Mostly, I try to be safe and not instigate road rage. But I don't think it's as simple as you're suggesting, either. You absolutely have to drive in a way that anticipates that others are acting selfishly. It's part of avoiding accidents.
      - rahimnathwani 7y ago
        You are right on all points, and just to clarify: - I'm not saying that minimising your own journey time should be your only or main objective - I'm not saying that minimising other people's journey time should be your only or main objective My observation (no judgment) is that we'd each like less traffic in front of us, but it's most convenient for us to drive in a way that slightly increases traffic for those behind us. Whether this is good or bad, I don't know. On the 280 and 101, it's common to see cars driving 80+, when the posted speed limit is 65. Perhaps better lane discipline would increase those speeds and make the roads less safe...
- cortesoft 7y ago
  What is this ‘gap’ you speak of? We don’t have those here in LA.
  - rahimnathwani 7y ago
    You need a gap between cars to stop them colliding due to speed variation. I've heard that all cars on LA roads go at the same 0mph, so I guess you don't need a gap.
- shaftway 7y ago
  > cars meeting to enter shouldn't affect you But they do, because when they don't it's potentially your life on the line. > an exiting car shouldn't affect you But they do, because there's always a reason. > just change lanes to overtake, and then pull back into the right lane afterwards I look at the act of driving on the freeway as gambling with my life. Every single action I take (or don't) has the potential to kill me. This is anecdotal, so I'm happy to take actual facts and change my opinion, but I see a much higher order of accidents (or near misses) caused by changing lanes than I see from people staying in their lane. My conclusion is that staying in a lane is inherently safer than drifting from lane to lane based on its occupancy level. > Driving in the middle lane is optimal from each driver's own perspective I generally stay in the middle lane when the load on the freeway is low to moderate. When the load is high it doesn't matter which lane you're in; they're all sub-optimal. But if there are so many people driving in the middle lane that journey times are increased, then people will start to pass more often and the lanes will even out. If they don't, then you're in high load. > it reduces road capacity It doesn't reduce road capacity. It could reduce road capacity utilization, but if you're hitting that point then the utilization has already taken a hit, and driver patterns change to utilize the road more fully (for better or worse). Ultimately the lane choice of each driver doesn't matter, because drivers won't sit in bumper to bumper traffic with a wide open lane next to them. In fact, changing lanes reduces road capacity utilization. For the duration of the lane change and for a short period before and after the car is effectively taking up two cars places (their place in the old lane and the new).

rahimnathwani 7y ago

"The right lane always has people merging, either to enter or exit, or trucks lumbering along at 45." Interesting perspective. I feel a little differently: - cars meeting to enter shouldn't affect you, because it's their responsibility to get to the right speed and time their entry to a gap; an entering car should never cause you to need to change speed or direction - an exiting car shouldn't affect you, because there's usually no reason for them to slow down before exit - you can overtake the slow trucks when you encounter them: just change lanes to overtake, and then pull back into the right lane afterwards Driving in the middle lane is optimal from each driver's own perspective but, globally, it reduces road capacity and increases journey times.

NoSorryCannot 7y ago
This seems a little bit idealistic. People merging onto the highway are supposed to reach highway speed before attempting to merge, but they very often do not do that. And they're supposed to to find a gap, but there may not be one or other drivers may deliberately try to deny them one. The merging lane may be very short. The merging car may start to change lanes even if it's not safe to do so. Congestion may require more deliberately courteous behavior. The right lane often has many trucks clustered together and rote exercise of the keep-right rule will require an excessive amount of lane changing. And on a limited access highway, lane changing is the most dangerous routine maneuver so one should be thoughtful of balancing lane changing with expediency. And the idea that a driver has no responsibility to accommodate another merging driver, if applied strictly, also means that one cannot always leave the right lane at will, because driver in the left lane are not permitting. So you change speed a lot, which is rough on fuel efficiency and precludes cruise control if it's adaptive. Being religious about keep-right is kind of miserable on a congested highway, especially one with a differential of speed speed limits depending on vehicle type. The people most steadfast about traffic laws get punished at the pleasure of people who flout them, which doesn't seem correct.
- rahimnathwani 7y ago
  "The people most steadfast about traffic laws get punished at the pleasure of people who flout them, which doesn't seem correct." Exactly. Each person acting in their own self-interest causes a reduction in road capacity and longer journey times. Those who try to stay in the right-most lane that's going their speed don't gain anything for themselves, as they only increase road capacity for people behind them.
  - NoSorryCannot 7y ago
    That's a bit of a cherry pick. I don't disagree with upholding the principle of the social good. But two things. Tragedy of the commons. You're arguing that some drivers should elect to have poor travel times to, frankly, accommodate those who are breaking the law. Maybe the law should be changed (different speed limits are bad) and more zealously enforced. Second, your greatest responsibility on the road is safety and accident avoidance, not expediency. It is not defensible to change lanes or refuse to accommodate another driver when it may cause an accident that could have been avoided. Changing lanes or refusing to accommodate is least safe when there is a lot of congestion. I don't know the best way to drive. I don't always obey the law and neither do I only do those things that give me individually an immediate. Mostly, I try to be safe and not instigate road rage. But I don't think it's as simple as you're suggesting, either. You absolutely have to drive in a way that anticipates that others are acting selfishly. It's part of avoiding accidents.
    - rahimnathwani 7y ago
      You are right on all points, and just to clarify: - I'm not saying that minimising your own journey time should be your only or main objective - I'm not saying that minimising other people's journey time should be your only or main objective My observation (no judgment) is that we'd each like less traffic in front of us, but it's most convenient for us to drive in a way that slightly increases traffic for those behind us. Whether this is good or bad, I don't know. On the 280 and 101, it's common to see cars driving 80+, when the posted speed limit is 65. Perhaps better lane discipline would increase those speeds and make the roads less safe...
cortesoft 7y ago
What is this ‘gap’ you speak of? We don’t have those here in LA.
- rahimnathwani 7y ago
  You need a gap between cars to stop them colliding due to speed variation. I've heard that all cars on LA roads go at the same 0mph, so I guess you don't need a gap.
shaftway 7y ago
> cars meeting to enter shouldn't affect you But they do, because when they don't it's potentially your life on the line. > an exiting car shouldn't affect you But they do, because there's always a reason. > just change lanes to overtake, and then pull back into the right lane afterwards I look at the act of driving on the freeway as gambling with my life. Every single action I take (or don't) has the potential to kill me. This is anecdotal, so I'm happy to take actual facts and change my opinion, but I see a much higher order of accidents (or near misses) caused by changing lanes than I see from people staying in their lane. My conclusion is that staying in a lane is inherently safer than drifting from lane to lane based on its occupancy level. > Driving in the middle lane is optimal from each driver's own perspective I generally stay in the middle lane when the load on the freeway is low to moderate. When the load is high it doesn't matter which lane you're in; they're all sub-optimal. But if there are so many people driving in the middle lane that journey times are increased, then people will start to pass more often and the lanes will even out. If they don't, then you're in high load. > it reduces road capacity It doesn't reduce road capacity. It could reduce road capacity utilization, but if you're hitting that point then the utilization has already taken a hit, and driver patterns change to utilize the road more fully (for better or worse). Ultimately the lane choice of each driver doesn't matter, because drivers won't sit in bumper to bumper traffic with a wide open lane next to them. In fact, changing lanes reduces road capacity utilization. For the duration of the lane change and for a short period before and after the car is effectively taking up two cars places (their place in the old lane and the new).