14 ms·

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

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...

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...