Comment on That's a no
IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works 20 hours agoYeah, that’s the big asterisk on the “zipper merging is more efficient” premise. It assumes that things are already bottlenecked. If you have the space to merge early without slowing down, you do that. People trying to force their way in at the last minute (when they didn’t have to) is one of the things that triggers the bottleneck in the first place.
K but people don’t tend to complain about those driving down the empty lane if there is no bottle neck.
Obviously if you’re racing down to cut someone off, that’s just as rude as any unsafe merge, but thats not unique to zipper merging, so is it relevant?
I’ll merge early but also try to go a bit slower than the person in front of me to open a gap which allows me to absorb some of the traffic wave (where flow alternatively speeds up and slows down from people trying to get up to speed only to have to slam on the brakes because some car ahead wasn’t going fast enough to maintain that), as well as leave space for others to merge at speed.
Though I sometimes close the gap if I notice people pulling into the right lane to try to skip the line.
rainwall@piefed.social 19 hours ago
Zipper merge is always the most efficient if people dont prevent merges, regardless of road conditions. It means both open lanes are used to move cars forward until the last moment when they cannot. “Move over early” means less throughput in the system, no matter “how open” one lane is at some point.
By blocking merges, you causes braking, which is what causes traffic. You framing people driving efficiently to prevent traffic as “people trying to force their way in last minute” means its you creating traffic, not them.
You’re arguing from a sense of moral suppority, I.e “I got in line early, you should have to,” not from a sense of efficently moving cars down a road.
taiyang@lemmy.world 18 hours ago
It’s rare, but I think they’re referring to when it’s open enough and running at optimal speeds. It happened the other day on a side street during an off hour, the free lane couldn’t cut to the front without going like 70mph in a 40mph zone.
Of course a muscle car did just that, but still.
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 18 hours ago
No.
Throughput is determined by number of through-lanes and the speed at which traffic is moving. Period. Completely.
Filling the merge lane when traffic is already slow does nothing but drive density up, which slows traffic further.
Sure, YOU might save some time by passing a bunch of cars, but it DOES NOT IMPROVE THROUGHPUT.
Zipper merging is about NOT having an area of abrupt speed change. It is not about using up a lane that is going away. Period. Ever.
It’s the same as an on-ramp: If you’re speeding up just to slam on your brakes to merge, that’s not zipper merging!
TwoTiredMice@feddit.dk 17 hours ago
Someone made a simulator for these scenarios where you can adjust on driver behaviour and see metrics in what is most efficient.
www.traffic-simulation.de
LurkingLuddite@piefed.social 15 hours ago
And it shows exactly what I’m talking about. When people are more interested in filling lanes than merging efficiently when one is disappearing, they reduce the throughput of traffic over all.