4 ms·

A lot of people and a lot of articles discuss resistance to this as a matter of misguided "politeness", and a LOT of the support for it carries a tone of smugne

by blahedo 12y ago

A lot of people and a lot of articles discuss resistance to this as a matter of misguided "politeness", and a LOT of the support for it carries a tone of smugness---there is definitely a weirdly emotional component to this. But here's the fairly objective thing I want to know: the people who have been (very negatively!) described as "early merge vigilantes" generally operate by staying in the lane that goes away but pacing the cars in the other lane, blocking the people behind them from zooming ahead; and then quickly merging just before the lane goes away (usually an enabler in the other lane will make this work better so neither has to slow down or stop at this point). So here's the question: isn't this exactly what the zipper merge is supposed to accomplish, with both lanes travelling the same speed? Why is this so-called "vigilante" behaviour being described as bad? If a driver that's smug about their late-merging behaviour being optimal is going noticeably faster in their lane than the lane that merged, doesn't that mean that what they're doing is exactly not a zipper merge? Perhaps the answer is that the ideal to aim for is not "late" merging, so much as "speed matching" merging: when there is a merge ahead, if you're in the faster of the two lanes (whichever one that is!), slow down a smidge now and then you won't have to screech to a braking halt at the merge point (and you'll also make the flow better for everyone behind you). Zooming ahead because there's a briefly clear section of road may be "late" merging in some sense, but is not the same thing as "zipper" merging and is not improving flow.

lamontcg 12y ago
The point is also to fill both lanes, so your last suggestion doesn't work very well. And I've been known to be a "vigilante" before. I'd give it up in a second if people would actually start filling the other lane. There's a merge here in Seattle -- the southbound I-5 collector-distributor with the onramp to 90 where it merges back into I-5 -- where people zipper halfway reasonably well and I actually routinely stay in the less-filled lane and late-merge. Washingtonians are awful at late merging/zippering though. Even when people are late merging you get tons of people merging early and then the line moves forwards and it screws over the lane that is being merged into. People just won't simply drive forwards to the merge spot. Dividers might help in some cases, but when the road is empty and everyone is doing 60+ mph the dividers are going to cause accidents. You could try to put down double lines on the road to block merging, but nobody pays attention to those here either. Getting zippering into drivers ed and getting them early, spamming the TV with ads, and putting signs up all over the place and carpet bombing the message might work. Happy to see them doing this. Oh yeah, and there's definitely an emotional component to it. When I'm stuck behind 50 cars and some asshat in a BMW goes speeding past to late merge the world goes completely red. I would love to stop doing that. If everyone zippers the asshat just has to pick a lane like everyone else, and there's no way to "cheat". And yes, "asshat" and "cheat" are all in my own brain. I find it extremely difficult to stop thinking that way when I see it though.
bsdetector 12y ago
It's actually really simple: early merge with cars going the same speed in all lanes is always better. You'll always get maximum throughput in the lanes remaining open, because the merge happens over a distance and so is smoother. But that's in theory, with people actually cooperating. In reality no matter what education campaign for early merge some few percent of people are just dicks, and when they see an open road ahead will zoom through at twice the speed and this is what causes the merge problem (see the green car in video). When people espouse late zipper merge it makes me sad because of what it says about human nature.
cdash 12y ago
I think you are misunderstanding what is being called "early merge vigilantes". They are people who merge early and then don't let people who didn't merge early like them in because they are trying to punish them for "cheating".

by blahedo 12y ago

lamontcg 12y ago

The point is also to fill both lanes, so your last suggestion doesn't work very well. And I've been known to be a "vigilante" before. I'd give it up in a second if people would actually start filling the other lane. There's a merge here in Seattle -- the southbound I-5 collector-distributor with the onramp to 90 where it merges back into I-5 -- where people zipper halfway reasonably well and I actually routinely stay in the less-filled lane and late-merge. Washingtonians are awful at late merging/zippering though. Even when people are late merging you get tons of people merging early and then the line moves forwards and it screws over the lane that is being merged into. People just won't simply drive forwards to the merge spot. Dividers might help in some cases, but when the road is empty and everyone is doing 60+ mph the dividers are going to cause accidents. You could try to put down double lines on the road to block merging, but nobody pays attention to those here either. Getting zippering into drivers ed and getting them early, spamming the TV with ads, and putting signs up all over the place and carpet bombing the message might work. Happy to see them doing this. Oh yeah, and there's definitely an emotional component to it. When I'm stuck behind 50 cars and some asshat in a BMW goes speeding past to late merge the world goes completely red. I would love to stop doing that. If everyone zippers the asshat just has to pick a lane like everyone else, and there's no way to "cheat". And yes, "asshat" and "cheat" are all in my own brain. I find it extremely difficult to stop thinking that way when I see it though.

bsdetector 12y ago

It's actually really simple: early merge with cars going the same speed in all lanes is always better. You'll always get maximum throughput in the lanes remaining open, because the merge happens over a distance and so is smoother. But that's in theory, with people actually cooperating. In reality no matter what education campaign for early merge some few percent of people are just dicks, and when they see an open road ahead will zoom through at twice the speed and this is what causes the merge problem (see the green car in video). When people espouse late zipper merge it makes me sad because of what it says about human nature.

cdash 12y ago

I think you are misunderstanding what is being called "early merge vigilantes". They are people who merge early and then don't let people who didn't merge early like them in because they are trying to punish them for "cheating".