Comment on That's a no
HeHoXa@lemmy.zip 16 hours agoThat’s the thing innit? The line should be spread across both lanes all the way up to the point where one closes.
The person who gets out into the closing lane to skip ahead probably isn’t thinking about it this much. They’re probably just an entitled asshole. But, in this case, they happen to be doing it right.
Everyone getting into the open lane early effectively closes the other lane early and pushes the congestion further back, disrupting other intersections.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 13 hours ago
If everyone merges into the through-lane as soon as they can, then there’s no bottleneck. It’s only an issue if there was another intersection recently before the lane closure, but typically these are on highways with few if any intersections.
If you have two lanes of traffic moving at a given speed, and try moving both those lanes through one lane of traffic, mathematically it has to slow down, because you’re trying to fit the same amount of traffic through half as much space.
It’s like when you pour water in a funnel, the bottom is narrower so it drains slower than you can fill it.
Or it’s like doubling the resistance on an electrical circuit. It cuts the current in half.
HeHoXa@lemmy.zip 12 hours ago
So, “there are circumstances in which merging in advance is acceptable.” Sure.
I think we’d be hard pressed to invent one where it’s superior without implying a failure in how the lane was closed.
In the US (where I am), zipper merging is mandatory in two states, recommend ten more, and allowed in all of them.
wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 10 hours ago
You’re still ignoring my main point which is how many people abuse the merging lane to try to get ahead and skip to the front of the line.
Systems that depend on everyone cooperating fairly and being patient and taking their turns kinda break down when a bunch of selfish people try to take advantage of the good faith and fairplay of others…