Did you recently take on (or consider) a loan of 84 months or longer on a car purchase?
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
A reporter would like to speak with you about your experience; please reach out to PR@Edmunds.com by 7/25 for details.
Options
Comments
OK, and I guess it's OK to walk your stuff to the head of the grocery line too. I'm guessing you wouldn't like that, so why is merging at the end of the closed lane any different?
Several years ago, I had a delivery truck pull out just after my light turned green. There was a 100 yard run up lane, just for this purpose, however, they pulled right into the main lane. I easily went around them, and they weren't happy. Then I allowed them to t'gate me for the next 15 miles at 10 below the limit. It was a 2 lane, and only moderate traffic. I was more than willing to drive under the limit until they got the idea. They never did, and every time they tried to pass illegally, I just sped up. Eventually the road turned into a 4 lane freeway, and I slowly eased away from them. They only caught me as I pulled off at my exit ramp.
The other week I had another idiot try to pass me illigally, in town, in front of the police station. I was stopped to let someone park, and they could see that(me in a Civic, them in an Econoline 350), so I pulled over, cutting them off, and drove at 10mph, until my turn off.
I almost ran a minivan off the road, I was on the PA t-pike, and they were entering, I couldn't move over due to traffic, and they never tried to match speed or beat it. They just assumed I would slow down to 50 to let them in. Wrongo!!! You don't try to merge with 70mph plus traffic at 20mph slower,and expect them to give up the right of way to you. They managed to stop on the shoulder, or, atleast, slow down enough. They were in a Honda Odessy, you know 240hp V6. I didn't see what their problem was. I will always move over, when I can, even if there is faster traffic coming. But when I can't, I still have the right of way, and will not give it up willingly. On the other hand I also will let people merge, one car at time, except those butt in line types.
I'm not in the lane after it closes, and I didn't necessarily move into the lane just because I knew it was closing. It's rather more difficult to merge earlier.
And it just seems like a waste for everyone to merge hundreds of yards before it closes. Pushes the inevitable jam back that far. It's also more dangerous that way; people change lanes haphazardly and unpredictably when they have that much space ahead of them to do it. We signal, start merging, aren't allowed in, turn back into the dying lane, turn off our signal, try again but this time more forcefully, etc.
The merging dynamic is much simpler at the actual choke point. Drivers tend to be very good at following the zipper sequence at those points, so everything's predictable and safe.
Only assumption I can make is that a traffic engineer determined that taking care of the merge right at the point where the lanes end is faster/safer/more efficient. Not sure that I agree with that concept, but not being a traffic engineer, that's just a gut feeling.
PF Flyer
Host
Pickups & News & Views Message Boards
First, I don't doubt that cell phone use while driving is indeed distracting. But, passing a law is silly. Why? As you pointed out later in your post, you suggest LEOs crack down on inattentive drivers/tailgaters, etc. Thus, all that needs to be done is the LEO determination the driver was inattentive while using the phone and cite. Done.
Yes, the inevitable problem. ID is almost solely given out after accidents. It's the only way to "prove" the driver was distracted. Which, I'm sure, is the cause behind the cell phone bans--legislate it outright and you don't have to call it something else.
However, the only issue I have is if cell phone is so prevalent, as people say it is and it is SO dangerous, as it's said to be, why aren't accidents soaring through the roof? Why does federal studies of the data show accidents caused by cell phone use are still a relatively low rate of causation? Because, there are tons of other distractions/errors that drivers make--none of which, save maybe drunk driving, immediately "stand out" on a statistical level. It be like banning "changing the radio station" and you'd see the same effect as banning cell phones.
It's important to note: there is no such thing as an accident. Barring the completely unexpected collapse of a mountain or failure of a mechanical part of a car, SOMEBODY in a crash made an error (whether one of distraction, judgement or otherwise) that led to the crash. I was reaching for the soda and the guy just stopped is not an accident. "It suddenly became very foggy and hit the guy ahead of me" isn't an accident. I could go on, but I think you see what I'm saying.
I'm also not saying I don't do these things that might lead to a crash--I'm just saying we could be tossing around tickets millions of times a year every time 2 cars collided.
(Not arguing that cells are NOT distracting, just saying).
Also the ladies seem to be having more animated conversations. The men seem to be calm, but the ladies' distraction seems so much greater. In many cases it looks like they are arguing rather than having a normal conversation.
I was tailgated by one of those recently. I could see all three chins flapping along with extra cheek as she talked away for at least ten minutes tailgating.
Even with the headsets, I worry when I see the ladies with cell phones. They sometimes are very slow to react, as in their turn at stop signs or to pull out onto a street, or they just 'go' whether it's the safe technique or not.
Please note this does not exempt all men nor indict all women. I'm putting on my flame suit NOW.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Like I said before (and echoing pf here), the general consensus is that in the absence of such signs you merge early. And the general consensus is what matters. Otherwise your actions appear unfair and arrogant.
However, how would you rate your friends, coworkers, family and other people you ride with? Personally, whenever I ride with other people, I see them committing all sorts of red-flag maneuvers that annoy me to no end. They tailgate, LLC, cut others off, yack on the phone, hide in the blind spot, weave through traffic, wander off their lane etc. etc. etc.
How do you guys respond? To be honest, I usually say nothing. I don't want to be an obnoxious backseat driver, and I hate to come off as preachy.
I like that method and having the signs up
IF the traffic is heavy enough that everyone slows down for the zipper to work at the end of the open lane.
I worry about that when the traffic is moving 35-80 mph and approaching the zipper and doesn't need to slow down to make safer zippering. There's always the idiot driver who's going to merge over at a high speed.
It all goes back to being considerate and short of having a patrol car near the merging, watching rather than eating donuts or filling out reports, it's never going to work perfectly.
I still recall how as a stranger to Philly's interstate from Valley Forge to and around the city, people seemed much more courteous about letting me merge in and out than I experience here in the 'friendly' midwest. Others from there seem sure I have confused cities and am talking about somewhere else.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
And who would make that judgement? Would the cop have to have conclusive proof (video) of the infraction? I have to say I don't trust the word of a quota based revenue collector one bit. I'd take it to court at the drop of a hat, and I would fight it all the way based on principle alone. There'd need to be a standard of proof.
When I ride with friends, I am always an obnoxious backseat driver...when they drive like idiots, anyway. They usually return the favor when in my car.
In that scenario, where do folks believe it is appropriate to enter the right lane? Anywhere that it is legal? At the first sign? The second?
Let me toss in that depending on time of day the right lane could be totally empty, or backed up significantly before there is any sign, so if you don't travel the route often you might look to someone like you are cutting in, when in fact you are following the instructions on the first sign you came to. Thoughts?
When merging off of a highway, there is a large difference in speed between the two lanes. It is your responsibility to get into the slower moving lane in a safe manner. If the exit lane is congested, safe usually means well before the actual "break off" point of the exit ramp.
I do not believe you should dutifully get on the end of the line though. It is plenty safe to merge in with the still moving traffic in the middle, or even closer to the end of the line of cars waiting to get off.
As far as two lanes merging into one goes... I think you are foolish not to wait until the last possible moment to merge as long as you can do so legally. You can save yourself a ton of time by merging as late as possible.
There is always a weak link that will let you in. And if you run across a stubborn driver that refuses to let you in, you can always slip in behind him. Even better, sometimes you can just skip him and merge in even further ahead. Personally, I think it is unsafe to try to prevent people from getting into a lane. It promotes road rage, results in extreme tailgating and greatly increases the likelihood of an accident. If everyone waited until the last possible moment to merge and then adopted a one-lane-then-the-next alternating philosophy, merging would be a painless process.
Ah, driving in NYC, there is nothing like it.
Any way, I don't have a good legal answer to your question. In my view unless a driver disrupts traffic flow or commits a dangerous maneuver the police should spend their time more productively than flogging a technicality like that, such as educating LLC's.
An exiting driver should be able to enter the exit lane anywhere he can manage. Some times in heavy traffic it is difficult to get over with only a mile's warning. As long as the lane-change is done safely and is properly signaled leave him alone.
A person who doen not intend to exit but rides the right lane should also be allowed to leave the lane wherever he wants - as long as he does not disrupt traffic or endanger anyone else. If, however that person stayed in the right lane to pass a bunch of traffic, then jumps back into the middle lane at the last second, that in itself isIMO is an endangering maneuver and deserves a stop if for no other reason than to slow him down.
Trouble is police do not like to stop cars - it's dangerous, and enforcement has gone toward fewer stops and then under as controlled circumstances as possible. As a result, enforcement suffers.
And I've also noticed that the majority of times that I've been tailgated, or someone just comes up on my back end too quickly in a slowdown situation, they're usually on a cell phone.
That's why I oppose focused laws like banning hand-held phones. If they are going to do that then they better outlaw all food and drinks, smoking etc. Besides, it's the conversation that distracts, not just the phone. Instead we should outlaw driving while distracted by anything when it results in erratic driving or crashing into things.
Obviously! Your attitude only adds insult to injury. You're cutting in front of everyone, AND you're assuming that everyone else actually does not realize that they could save time by using the left lane? Of course everyone knows they could individually benefit by using the left lane; rather they choose to get over sooner because they believe it is the right thing to do.
There is always a weak link that will let you in. And if you run across a stubborn driver that refuses to let you in, you can always slip in behind him. Even better, sometimes you can just skip him and merge in even further ahead. Personally, I think it is unsafe to try to prevent people from getting into a lane. It promotes road rage, results in extreme tailgating and greatly increases the likelihood of an accident.
Well, who is promoting the road rage here? I guess it depends on how you look at it. Obviously if no one ever cut over at the last second, then people wouldn't be so paranoid about blocking them, and thus people wouldn't tailgate so aggresively.
If everyone waited until the last possible moment to merge and then adopted a one-lane-then-the-next alternating philosophy, merging would be a painless process.
As others have pointed out, this is a traffic engineer question. I don't know if any of us are qualified to make this call. Apparently in some areas, the local government HAS decided that this is true, and hence the signage with explicit instructions.
At any rate, my point is that this is more about GROUP DYNAMICS and GROUP EXPECTATIONS. If there is a lane merge, and you are the only car speeding down the left lane, passing up hundreds of cars, obviously the expectation is that drivers SHOULD get over asap. There is a lot more going on than "Well, gee, all these silly people don't realize they could save time by using the left lane..."
Thanks for hearing me out. I hope I'm not coming down too hard on you, sockpuppet
<rant>I read the super market analogy in an earlier post, and I say it doesn't fit. If you can find a store that has two or three checkout lines feeding one-fewer cashier than lines, then maybe it would be analogous, but they don't work that way. Highways do.
Why should lines of cars sit one behind the other like sheep, with an empty lane next to them? Using it is not cutting in, it's using an open, legal lane. How early should we all merge, at the first sign? How about several miles back, so that nobody can pass and it will all be fair? If the lane is there, and there are no signs saying "Merge now!" (which I have seen) then why criticize people who use it?
Oh, and IMO people who straddle the line to block cars are in about the same league as LLC's who drive stridently at the speed limit in the left lane to enforce the law. If you want to merge early - do it. Just get over and leave enforcement to those who are paid to do it.</rant>
Thanks - I feel better now....
1) Offramps from two highways merge into one before feeding into an onramp for a third highway. Traffic is generally crawling, and most cars zipper in as the two feeders come together, rather than waiting the 1/4 mile or so until the lane disappears. Occasionally a car pulls out around the car ahead of him who has already merged, then continues as far as possible before squeezing in. I find it rude, inconsiderate and annoying, although not particularly dangerous.
2) Traffic exiting from a major highway onto another major highway backs up (stop and go) a mile or before the actual exit. The upcoming exit is clearly marked, and as it's a spur, it's almost all daily commuters - no surprises to anyone. There are always several drivers who don't feel like they need to wait with the rest, so they go all the way to the front, then try to cut in. They always have to slow (or sometimes stop) in the travel lane to find a spot to cut in. Therefore, the people who are really in a hurry know to stay two lanes over, then go all the way to the front to cut in, etc... It continues until you have a moron stopped in the far left lane, looking for a gap to make a right exit. Needless to say, there are many rear-enders each day. To me, this goes beyond inconsiderate, and should be worth losing your license at a minimum. Preferably lose your license, lose your car, and have your fingernails pulled out one at a time.
The scenarios you describe are ramp merges, which are a little different. I agree with your point, but there are as many opinions as there are drivers lol.
Now - don't you agree that every single square foot of line space would be filled, right up to the funnel? Would the crowd leave one of the lines empty? I don't think so, and why should they?
I mentioned an example earlier at the airport, in which someone "creates" their own line where there is only one that splits before several slots (in an area where lines are poorly marked ot begin with).
Perhaps they know something that we don't? Or maybe officially recognize a dangerous situation, and do their best to relieve it.
But when a lane is being cut, changing lanes early - before the lane disappears - is analogous to the above situation. Those early-mergers change lanes like they're under pressure to do so early, so they do it unpredictably and sloppily. Everyone's worrying "is the guy next to me gonna move? What about the cars in front of me and behind me? Can I go now? no... now? yes there's an opening! jump!" This is assuming that traffic is already jammed by the time the "lane closed ahead" sign shows up, which is usually the case in my experience.
Those who wait until the lane dies have it very simple: car in front merges, let one car from the next lane go, then merge behind it.
If the merging lane is filled by people waiting their turn to merge in rather than a ton of people merging over haphazardly maybe it would prevent an idiot from shooting over to the right lane that's ending for the explicit purpose of moving ahead of everyone by a quarter of a mile.
That being said I'm one of them early mergers. If it's easy to get over before I hit the merge point I'll do it. I'm always afraid that someone won't let me in if I wait 'til the merge.
What bugs me though is on the expressway, you see someone who needs to get in from the entrance ramp. You back off so they can merge on. Why on earth do they continue going their reduced speed and ride the far right line until it actually merges? When I'm in that situation I move over into the lane right away and speed up to match traffic immediately. Ah well
Instead he later found he'd been shot.
Fairborn, OHIO, home of Wright Patterson Air Force Base!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
Sounds like someone else thinks the same way.
I've had lots of close calls with cars, been hit once (lightly) and verbally abused numerous times. These have been mostly the result of inattention, but in a few cases drivers were clearly trying to intimidate me, apparently believing bicyclists do not belong on the roads.
Seriously, as someone who also rides a bike I must agree, even though I sometimes feel that a basic lack of understanding of the laws of physics comes into play.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040913/bs_afp/- us_auto_truck
There is no way to tell the cause of the blockage or the length of the backup. It could be caused by an accident or construction or a political rally... who knows? All lanes are equally slow... average speed is a slow walk... maybe 2 mph. I could be here for hours.
Then I see an exit a short distance ahead. I'm already in the right lane, because I'm one of the three people in the State of Washington who follows the dictate: "Keep Right Except to Pass". So, as soon as I am able, I signal and exit.
It's a long sweeping off-ramp with a stop sign at the top. I stop, then proceed directly across the overpass and onto the on-ramp, right back onto the interstate. I drive down the ramp at a moderate pace, signal and merge at the end of the ramp, without any problem. The driver of the car that lets me in has no idea that I just leap-frogged traffic. I've picked up nearly half a mile and saved almost a quarter of an hour!
I see a sign up ahead: "Gas next exit 3/4 mile", woo-hoo, I'm on a roll !!!
Please note that the above was a work of fiction. I have never actual performed the above "inconsideration" although I have been sorely tempted. I did once take an exit with the thought of giving it a try, but decided instead to take the back roads around the blockage.
Y'all hava great day!!!
james
Other instances is on roads with high traffic speeds that were never designed for byciclists. In many such instances there will be a specifically designated bike path on the side of the road which the city went to considerable expense to build. But every now and then, rather than use the path specifically set aside for bikers and joggers, some bikers will choose to peddle along furiously in what is normally 50-55 mph traffic, slowing everybody down to a crawl while drivers wait for an opportunity to squeeze by safely. Anybody who lives in Philly and has cruised along Kelly Drive will know what I'm talking about. Perfectly good 15-20 miles of nice, wide, smooth bike pathes right next to curving boulevard, 2 lanes each way, with average speeds of anywhere from 45-55. And for some reason some byciclists choose to forego the bike paths and instead create a road hazzard by riding in heavy high speed traffic.
In general, my impression is the byciclists in Philly want to have it both ways, expect to do whatever they want, whenever they want, no matter how dangerous or inconsiderate, but expect that motorists go out of their way to indulge their behavior and be extra considerate towards them in return.
I hear you on the laws of physics. People seem to think I am immune to them when I'm on my bike. Either that or they figure I can't damage their car too much when they run me over!
You are correct that the same laws apply to drivers of bicycles as to those of autos. The same privelege to use public roadways also applies, although common sense would tell you that using the bike paths where available is safer.
I've found my patience toward cycles much greater since I've been using mine to commute. You are probably not losing any time waiting to pass a bike considering how the bad traffic in Philly and most major cities.
Happened in Green Bay, the other day.
Since the stakes for a cyclist in an encounter with a vehicle are much higher, I'd think the cyclist would be more careful, but that doesn't seem to be the case. (I'm not anti-bicycle - I enjoy it as much as driving.)
Yeah, I know. Initially, I had heard no one was seriously injured, etc--I hadn't seen news reports or anything on this. You can imagine my disappointment when I heard this guy hits a cop car (scary thing, too--because in a "suburb" of Green Bay just a couple years ago, a guy intentionally rammed a cop car in a median, killing an officer in training and a long-term veteran, not long from retirement) and lived. Grrr. So I was quite relieved to hear he received an appropriate punishment. Here's a tip to all those brainiacs out there who are unable to control themselves. Please vent your frustrations, the mommy-didn't-hug-me's, the woe is me's and any other crybaby complaint you might have by doing it the old fashioned way--just jump off a bridge or you're an American--surely you have a serviceable weapon around. Just don't do it by tossing babies out windows or ramming cop cars. It tends not to help your cause.
(FWIW, the cop car was unoccupied when the idiot rammed it). As for traffic, I had a client tell me it took him 1 hr, 20 mins to go a distance normally travelled in 6-7 minutes.
As for me I whine about it wether it's a bike or a car.
I ride to work often as well, and you wouldn't believe the crap some people pull. For me anyway it's nearly always good ol' boys in pickup trucks. They'll try to see if they can make you veer off the road, or they'll spray you with their windshield washers, etc. I've never had beer bottles / etc chucked at me, but I know guys who have. One friend of mine had an altercation with a dude who pulled out of a parking lot and knocked him off his bike. He was OK, but the guy proceeded to scream and swear at him, telling him he shouldn't be riding on public roads.
I generally ride back roads to work, with one very busy 4 lane with no shoulders to speak of. On that section I ride on the sidewalk. Illegal? Yup. But better illegal and alive than legal and flat.
-Jason