# All hail the zipper merge!



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

One of my driving peeves, hurrah for this article:

All hail the zipper merge: How Canadian politeness is killing the efficiency of our highways

I usually stay in a terminating lane until it requires a merge, and have often had two or three drivers snug their vehicles together and refuse to let me merge because I was "rude" in not lining up politely back with others in the remaining running lane.

They'd be prigs except that the little people are not defending any law or even any reasonable convention. They're just ignorant, and probably feel very self-righteous, much like drivers who won't pull over and vacate the passing lane for faster-moving traffic.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

In my area, there is a lane on the expressway that serves as both entering lane and exit lane for two successive turnoffs. Far too many drivers treat it as their own personal passing lane, zipping past all the other drivers until they arrive at the painted partition between the exit lane and main traffic, and then make puppy-dog eyes to try and enter into the flow of traffic. I hasten to remind such folks that the passing lane is on the *left*, not the *right*.

But this is different than the so-called zipper merge, which pertains to the ending of a lane that might normally be in service (often accompanied on many highway by a big lit arrow sign). Circumstances vary, but as the driver of a lower-profile vehicle, with a much shorter horizon than folks sitting a foot and a half higher, one often finds oneself not being able to see the need for a lane merge until late in the game. In which case, zipper merging is sensible. On municipal expressways, where some drivers treat service lanes as their privileged pathway, zippering, rather than merging at the first available opportunity, is misbehaviour. I decline to allow them entry. Either you're entering the flow of traffic, or leaving it. You can't pretend like you're leaving and then decide to enter when it's advantageous for you.

Of course, one has to wonder what the future of self-driving vehicles holds for that sort of behaviour. Bit of a monkey wrench in the works, I would think.


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

Someone (a lot of someones) need to learn the difference between these situations and signs.


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

Grr, pet peeve time. Here is the actual problem ...

I don't agree with the approach in these articles and discussions. Zipper merge is the right way, but pretty much 100% of signs are LANE ENDS, not merge, with associated invalid road markings that further support LANE ENDS rather than merge interpretation. Until our roads and construction setup use proper merge marking and setup, trying to get people to merge is simply NOT GOING TO WORK and is a completely invalid assertion -- we are asked to do one thing, and this article implies we should somehow mind-read every situation and intent to be something else entirely? Nonsense. Fix the roads and traffic managers, THEN get on the high horse for drivers.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

You make a good point. Decent signage is not necessarily the _root_ of the problem, but could go a long way toward improving things.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

LexxM3 said:


> Grr, pet peeve time. Here is the actual problem ...
> 
> I don't agree with the approach in these articles and discussions. Zipper merge is the right way, but pretty much 100% of signs are LANE ENDS, not merge, with associated invalid road markings that further support LANE ENDS rather than merge interpretation. Until our roads and construction setup use proper merge marking and setup, trying to get people to merge is simply NOT GOING TO WORK and is a completely invalid assertion -- we are asked to do one thing, and this article implies we should somehow mind-read every situation and intent to be something else entirely? Nonsense. Fix the roads and traffic managers, THEN get on the high horse for drivers.


So is your issue that they don't put correct signage or you don't agree that the zipper is more efficient?

The article alludes to education on the subject including signage where certain jurisdictions saw fit to do it as well as informing people of the more efficient way to handle a merge. These things don't happen over night but it's good to start getting the word out there. I wish it was enforced and had proper signage too. 
I was one of those people who lined up and got pissed at everyone seeming to rush in to cut the line but after examining it more closely and being willing to view it objectively I'm a convert.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

A lot of these problems go back to lack of training before a person gets their license and driving tests being too easy and incomplete.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

I want to know why I see more adults aged roughly 30+ passing on the right. It seems more frequent compared to just a few years ago.


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

As I stated, I strongly believe (know) that zipper is the right approach. Full stop.

My issue is that the signs and road setup are 100% lane ends, not merge. Lane ends rule states "change lanes when it's safe to do so" for the driver whose lane ends and states nothing at all for the driver in the non-ending lane. Articles and pundits telling the drivers they are doing it wrong are, themselves, completely wrong for nearly 100% of signs and road setups.

First, change signage and standard road setup to properly represent a merge. Then teach drivers. Then go after idiots that don't do it. In that order.


----------



## Hamstrung (Sep 21, 2007)

Budda said:


> I want to know why I see more adults aged roughly 30+ passing on the right. It seems more frequent compared to just a few years ago.


Probably because some numb nut is blocking the left lane! (tongue in cheek)


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Budda said:


> I want to know why I see more adults aged roughly 30+ passing on the right. It seems more frequent compared to just a few years ago.


My own hypothesis is that, as more people end up having to commute longer and longer distances on a daily basis, their patience declines, and their incivility on the road increases. Perhaps having commuted more years _also_ increases impatience and incivility?


----------



## Guest (Jan 23, 2017)

For some reason, most want to drive in the left lanes.
It leaves the right all open to me. lol.
Eventually, the left lanes back up leaving the right still flowing.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

mhammer said:


> In my area, there is a lane on the expressway that serves as both entering lane and exit lane for two successive turnoffs. Far too many drivers treat it as their own personal passing lane, zipping past all the other drivers until they arrive at the painted partition between the exit lane and main traffic, and then make puppy-dog eyes to try and enter into the flow of traffic. I hasten to remind such folks that the passing lane is on the *left*, not the *right*.<snip>


If entering a highway on an on-ramp, and traffic is stopped or slow, I drive to the end of the ramp before merging which means I may pass cars before attempting to merge. Just like a lane-closed or lane-ending situation, it makes sense. If you're suggesting that drivers must merge into traffic as soon as possible after the road markings make it legal regardless of open ramp lane ahead of them then you're asserting (and causing) the problems described in the article I posted.

The distinction of the lane being both on- and off-ramp lanes does not change this. In fact it exacerbates it since drivers sharing your made-up rule of behavior by hanging back to merge early and line up politely with other traffic will be impeding the drivers trying to exit on that lane as well as others trying to enter the highway on it.

In both of these types of on-ramps drivers should travel down the ramp, merging before the end of it only when they can do so smoothly without braking and impeding anything behind them. Otherwise they should brake near the end of the ramp and drivers should let them in there, and by not doing so you are part of the problem.

As for the drivers who skip out of a clogged lane to zip down the on-ramp and then wedge back into traffic, we agree. There's a special place in hell for those drivers. In Ontario (at least) we have law against that which is occasionally very-satisfyingly enforced by the Ontario Provincial Police. As an example, in the Toronto area the long on-ramp onto Hwy 404 from Steeles Avenue evolves into the long off-ramp for Hwy 407, which presents a great opportunity for these selfish pricks to get ahead by a kilometer or so. They can create a noticeable slow-down there by increasing the number of vehicles entering (re-entering in their case) the traffic lane so, not often enough, the OPP is there waiting to pick them off which brings great pleasure. However if coming off of Steeles when traffic is not flowing well, driving to near the end of the on-lane before merging in is not only legal, but sensible.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

I think this is a subset of the larger problem - many Canadians think 'polite' driving is better than driving by the rules. 

The problem is the rules are universal to all of us. If you follow the rules, I can predict what you will do and vice versa. If you decide to bypass all known rules and, for example, stop when you have the right-of-way and wave me through a stop sign (one of a dozen dumb things I see regularly), you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I'm all for being civil and polite in traffic, but within the boundaries of the rules. If you can't do that, FFS text everyone in Canada you're revision of the rules so at least we know what to expect from you.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

We had construction on Hwy 11 last summer, taking it from 2 lanes to one. Approaching the merge, it was frighteningly common for me to see people deliberately driving halfway in EACH lane in order to prevent EITHER lane from passing in a safe manner. All this despite the fact that there might be 1 km or more until the actual merge. Absolutely ridiculous. You want to stay in the left, fine. You want to try to pass a few cars safely in the right lane before it merges, fine. Just don't purposely make yourself a moving road block, preventing people from driving LEGALLY in the lane of their choice, at the speed that that lane allows.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

boyscout said:


> If entering a highway on an on-ramp, and traffic is stopped or slow, I drive to the end of the ramp before merging which means I may pass cars before attempting to merge. Just like a lane-closed or lane-ending situation, it makes sense. If you're suggesting that drivers must merge into traffic as soon as possible after the road markings make it legal regardless of open ramp lane ahead of them then you're asserting (and causing) the problems described in the article I posted.
> 
> The distinction of the lane being both on- and off-ramp lanes does not change this. In fact it exacerbates it since drivers sharing your made-up rule of behavior by hanging back to merge early and line up politely with other traffic will be impeding the drivers trying to exit on that lane as well as others trying to enter the highway on it.
> 
> In both of these types of on-ramps drivers should travel down the ramp, merging before the end of it only when they can do so smoothly without braking and impeding anything behind them. Otherwise they should brake near the end of the ramp and drivers should let them in there, and by not doing so you are part of the problem.


My belligerence in this context only comes out when I see someone has zipped along the service lane, at 20+ clicks faster than the rest of the traffic, treating it as their personal passing lane. If they are moving at the speed of traffic, and no one has let them in, I'm merciful. But if their obvious goal is to treat all other drivers as suckers, f*** 'em. I don't owe them any favours.


> As for the drivers who skip out of a clogged lane to zip down the on-ramp and then wedge back into traffic, we agree. There's a special place in hell for those drivers. In Ontario (at least) we have law against that which is occasionally very-satisfyingly enforced by the Ontario Provincial Police. As an example, in the Toronto area the long on-ramp onto Hwy 404 from Steeles Avenue evolves into the long off-ramp for Hwy 407, which presents a great opportunity for these selfish pricks to get ahead by a kilometer or so. They can create a noticeable slow-down there by increasing the number of vehicles entering (re-entering in their case) the traffic lane so, not often enough, the OPP is there waiting to pick them off which brings great pleasure. However if coming off of Steeles when traffic is not flowing well, driving to near the end of the on-lane before merging in is not only legal, but sensible.


What I suggested hinges on existing drivers in the right-hand lane making room for earliest-possible lane merges, without the entering driver having to slow down. Ideally, one either eases up on the gas a smidgen to give the entering driver a fighting chance, or moves over to the left or centre lane on an expressway such that drivers entering from an off ramp can accelerate up to the speed of traffic easily and without impediment. Sadly, there are inconsiderate people in BOTH the service lane and right-hand lane. Unfortunately, both options tend not to be available during rush hour, when the congestion and rampant lane-switching increases. Which is one of several reasons why I prefer to take the bus to work...I like to see people at their best, rather than their worst. Keeps me in a much better mood.

Many many years back, I worked with hamsters, chopping off their little heads, and delicately removing their pineal glands. One of the annoying habits of those little tribbles-with-eyes was that if you pestered one of them and it shrieked, ALL the others (and I had 360 of them) would instantly and reflexively back into a corner, stand up on their hind legs, and begin shrieking. Over the Christmas break, we were driving home along the 401 between Whitby and Ottawa, and you'd hit these vast stretches where everybody's break lights would be on, for kilometers at a stretch. You'd think "Hmm, there must be an accident or a lane closure up ahead". You'd inch along, often at less than 30kmh, and then 20 minutes later, the traffic would magically open up. No accident, no lane closure, and no exit to siphon off traffic. It was simply a case of somebody at the front of the pack touching their brakes and, just like the hamsters, hundreds and hundreds of other drivers behind them (the majority of which were tailgating) would hit their brakes, and things would grind to a halt. Took us 8hrs to complete what is often a 5hr trip. Sadly, if you leave enough space between vehicles so that all you need to do is take your foot off the gas momentarily, rather than stepping on your brakes, some putz will assume it is their God-given right to fill that space. It's their greed for "position" that all too often prompts the slowdowns. I used to lament that I had not bought a car with cruise control, but in truth, for 98% of any highway driving I do, I simply can't use it any more. Too damn many interruptions.

Potentially, that might be one of the problems that self-driving cars solve...maybe.


----------



## Diablo (Dec 20, 2007)

Hamstrung said:


> Probably because some numb nut is blocking the left lane! (tongue in cheek)


I actually think that's correct. the left lane is so often congested and not used for passing, that the right lane is usually more open to use for passing.


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

we need big signs like that video had:

"MERGE HERE"

"TAKE TURNS"

otherwise it's just a mess


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

bolero said:


> we need big signs like that video had:
> 
> "MERGE HERE"
> 
> ...


This assumes two things: 1. People can read 2. People follow instructions.


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

Budda said:


> This assumes two things: 1. People can read 2. People follow instructions.


Once you have this on the roads, then you can complain about people. Until then, the actual rules for lane ends (ie change lane when safe to do so) are NOT the rules for a merge (ie zipper merge approach opportunity) and the signage and actual lane closure road setups ARE ALL LANE ENDS. Driver are behaving the way they behave now because they are told to behave this way by the signs and road setup. I am all for complaining about "other people" (do it all the time myself), but in this case, it's the road/sign design that is completely wrong.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Don't see that it's gonna work as long as 25% of the people are overly aggressive and 25% are timid to the point that they shouldn't be on the highway. Seamless merging requires an unspoken agreement, anticipation and respect amongst drivers. Adding a police presence with the flashing lights, pulled over cars and rubber-necking will just make it worse.

These "traffic specialists" have probable never driven on a highway. Try bunching up all the teeth before you close the zipper - that's what you get when a lane ends.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

JBFairthorne said:


> We had construction on Hwy 11 last summer, taking it from 2 lanes to one. Approaching the merge, it was frighteningly common for me to see people deliberately driving halfway in EACH lane in order to prevent EITHER lane from passing in a safe manner. All this despite the fact that there might be 1 km or more until the actual merge. Absolutely ridiculous. You want to stay in the left, fine. You want to try to pass a few cars safely in the right lane before it merges, fine. Just don't purposely make yourself a moving road block, preventing people from driving LEGALLY in the lane of their choice, at the speed that that lane allows.


I fully understand why people do this. People have been in the slow, backed up lane for some time and then someone comes and drives down the mostly empty lane and cuts in so they are way ahead of the people that have been patiently waiting in line. By doing this, they force people behind to do the zipper merge and the backup actually starts to move quicker. But by scooting ahead and forcing yourself in at the last minute forces everyone in the backed up lane to have to brake to make room extending the backup. 

If the backup was signed better or people were trained better and everyone was courteous, the zipper merge would work. Don't hold your breath on this happening. You will run out of breath in a hurry.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

It is all predicated on the distribution of patience across the driving public. Unfortunately, not a lot of it these days, and generally less in major urban locations.


----------



## ZeroGravity (Mar 25, 2016)

mhammer said:


> It is all predicated on the distribution of patience across the driving public. Unfortunately, not a lot of it these days, and generally less in major urban locations.


Mostly clowns in BMWs who won't let you in because they'll be one car further back and they are in a hurry, or people pissed off at clowns in BMWs who they think are trying to do and end-run and squeezing in at the last second. It's BMW drivers that are the problem here. Actually my experience lately has been more with Hyundai drivers for some reason.


----------



## vadsy (Dec 2, 2010)

ZeroGravity said:


> Mostly clowns in BMWs who won't let you in because they'll be one car further back and they are in a hurry, or people pissed off at clowns in BMWs who they think are trying to do and end-run and squeezing in at the last second. It's BMW drivers that are the problem here. Actually my experience lately has been more with Hyundai drivers for some reason.


Agreed, it isn't BMW drivers that are the problem, it's the clowns in Hyundai's.


----------



## mhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

ZeroGravity said:


> Mostly clowns in BMWs who won't let you in because they'll be one car further back and they are in a hurry, or people pissed off at clowns in BMWs who they think are trying to do and end-run and squeezing in at the last second. It's BMW drivers that are the problem here. Actually my experience lately has been more with Hyundai drivers for some reason.


Not having been in one since 1979, my recollection is that BMWs can have a lot of pick-up, of the sort that persuades the driver that they can easily move from over _here_ to over_ there_, if only they will it. So I guess that when one combines impatience with the hypothetical ability to productively _leverage_ that impatience, people are more likely to act on it.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

It's in our nature to get one up on the other guy. If there's a bit of free room you can bet there's an ass that's going to use it to get one more car ahead. That's the biggest problem with merges - most people will merge while the traffic is flowing in a nice orderly fashion, but there will always be just enough selfish idiots that rush to the end of the lane and then stop everybody as they jam themselves in. Whatcha gonna do? Put a cop there and stop even more traffic?

I commuted all over the GTA for 24 years. Nothings gonna change human nature.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

mhammer said:


> It is all predicated on the distribution of patience across the driving public. *Unfortunately, not a lot of it these days, and generally less in major urban locations.*


Unfortunately, so true.


----------



## cheezyridr (Jun 8, 2009)

High/Deaf said:


> I think this is a subset of the larger problem - many Canadians think 'polite' driving is better than driving by the rules.
> 
> The problem is the rules are universal to all of us. If you follow the rules, I can predict what you will do and vice versa. If you decide to bypass all known rules and, for example, stop when you have the right-of-way and wave me through a stop sign (one of a dozen dumb things I see regularly), you aren't part of the solution, you are part of the problem. I'm all for being civil and polite in traffic, but within the boundaries of the rules. If you can't do that, FFS text everyone in Canada you're revision of the rules so at least we know what to expect from you.


thank you, thank you, for saying one of the most important things that could be said, in an easily understandable way. it is typical the way everyone ignored it





allthumbs56 said:


> Don't see that it's gonna work as long as 25% of the people are overly aggressive and 25% are timid to the point that they shouldn't be on the highway. Seamless merging requires an unspoken agreement, anticipation and respect amongst drivers. Adding a police presence with the flashing lights, pulled over cars and rubber-necking will just make it worse.
> 
> These "traffic specialists" have probable never driven on a highway. Try bunching up all the teeth before you close the zipper - that's what you get when a lane ends.



these 2 posts demonstrate the real reason you have the problem. of the entire number of people who posted in this thread, _they are the only people who actually get it_, and understand what's really going on.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

cheezyridr said:


> thank you, thank you, for saying one of the most important things that could be said, in an easily understandable way. it is typical the way everyone ignored it


As for the too polite problem, we had a big problem with this when I lived in NS. They eventually had to put in a light so the traffic could move during rush hour. Traffic was backed up for almost a mile because the "polite" people were stopping for one car that had waited 5 seconds while there were 100 cars behind them in stop and go traffic.


----------



## zontar (Oct 25, 2007)

When people follow what they should do it works well.
there's one road I used to drive on almost every day and I worked well at one spot where things went down to one lane--and there was a merge lane for people coming in from the right just before that--so it was 3 lanes into one.
Mot days it worked--it slowed down a little--but it moved
It must have been the slight slow down that bothered some people
One day I was in the lane people were merging into (I was in it because I made a left turn to get on the road--so I was already in the lane, I didn't have to merge into it--and I had just let someone in--as part of the zipper merge when I looked in the mirror & I saw a guy in a big pickup truck who was in the lane being merged into--he roared out of that lane & drove on the shoulder to try & get ahead 2 or 3 cars.
When I didn't let him in (By then it was one lane & the flow of traffic didn't allow that to be done safely--so he had to back off) he got in behind me--and after the road went to two lanes I kept an eye on him as he zoomed into the new lane to the right & then cut me off.
As I was watching for him I was prepared & no harm done--then he went back to the other lane & zoomed off (Most of the cars stayed int he left lane & turned off to the left at the next intersection (Which is what I did)
Over the next couple of weeks I saw the same truck doing the same thing--always trying to squeeze in.
But that was the only time he did that where it directly affected me.

When people did the zipper thing it was fine.
When they were jerks it slowed things down.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

Steadfastly said:


> I fully understand why people do this. People have been in the slow, backed up lane for some time and then someone comes and drives down the mostly empty lane and cuts in so they are way ahead of the people that have been patiently waiting in line. By doing this, they force people behind to do the zipper merge and the backup actually starts to move quicker. But by scooting ahead and forcing yourself in at the last minute forces everyone in the backed up lane to have to brake to make room extending the backup.
> 
> If the backup was signed better or people were trained better and everyone was courteous, the zipper merge would work. Don't hold your breath on this happening. You will run out of breath in a hurry.


So does that excuse the road rage that Ive been victim to many times when I am following the law?

Ive had guys mive their vehicles into my lane to block me off and then drive on the shoulder to get in front of me and brake check me. Righteous assholes. I think every time they were driving a jacked up pickup or a range rover.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> It's in our nature to get one up on the other guy. If there's a bit of free room you can bet there's an ass that's going to use it to get one more car ahead. That's the biggest problem with merges - most people will merge while the traffic is flowing in a nice orderly fashion, but there will always be just enough selfish idiots that rush to the end of the lane and then stop everybody as they jam themselves in. Whatcha gonna do? Put a cop there and stop even more traffic?
> 
> I commuted all over the GTA for 24 years. Nothings gonna change human nature.


I cant agree with you. Why the F would I wait and line up when there is a perfectly good lane empty and waiting for me to LEGALY zipper? 

Its righteous attitudes that you display that is the only cause of the problem.

Do you think its better to line up and push the congestion back another click or two?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

TheYanChamp said:


> So does that excuse the road rage that Ive been victim to many times when I am following the law?
> 
> Ive had guys mive their vehicles into my lane to block me off and then drive on the shoulder to get in front of me and brake check me. Righteous assholes. I think every time they were driving a jacked up pickup or a range rover.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


I don't adhere to rage of any kind. 

If someone is trying to get ahead of others, rather than be fair, though, you can understand why others get upset and want things to be fair. I have seen truckers move over and block people in the passing lane that were trying to overtake everyone else in the backed up lane. They did not try to get ahead, just forced everyone behind them to do the zipper merge. To me, that seems more fair than those zooming to the front in the passing lane and forcing themselves in at the last second.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

That really grinds my gears, because its not about fair, its about the rules which is why its finally made the news.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

TheYanChamp said:


> That really grinds my gears, because its not about fair, its about the rules which is why its finally made the news.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


And are the rules not their to make it fair for everyone? Much of the problem is lack of manners on both sides of the coin. Also, the lack of driver education which is seriously lacking.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

Exactly right. I guess you really cant teach an old dog new tricks..

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

TheYanChamp said:


> Exactly right. I guess you really cant teach an old dog new tricks..
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


Well, you can if they want to learn and have a good teacher. Therein lies another problem in this system we live in.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Steadfastly said:


> I don't adhere to rage of any kind.
> 
> If someone is trying to get ahead of others, rather than be fair, though, you can understand why others get upset and want things to be fair. I have seen truckers move over and block people in the passing lane that were trying to overtake everyone else in the backed up lane. They did not try to get ahead, just forced everyone behind them to do the zipper merge. To me, that seems more fair than those zooming to the front in the passing lane and forcing themselves in at the last second.


That's illegal...and produces a situation far more dangerous than someone passing in a LEGAL lane at a safe rate of speed for the conditions.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

JBFairthorne said:


> That's illegal...and produces a situation far more dangerous than someone passing in a LEGAL lane at a safe rate of speed for the conditions.


I have never seen any danger when it was done. No one was ever cut off, just made to respect everyone else.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

A vehicle effectively blocking two lanes is always more dangerous than driving legally in one lane. I find it somewhat odd that so many people think it's unacceptable for someone in an uncongested lane to pass those in a backed up lane while at the same time somehow finding it acceptable for someone to ILLEGALLY block both lanes. But hey, whatever. Perhaps the real problem is people thinking it's okay taking it upon themselves to "direct" traffic in an illegal manner.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

TheYanChamp said:


> I cant agree with you. Why the F would I wait and line up when there is a perfectly good lane empty and waiting for me to LEGALY zipper?
> 
> Its righteous attitudes that you display that is the only cause of the problem.
> 
> ...


Disagree away but think of this - if a water hose is pinched anywhere down it's length the overall flow will be restricted, and the same amount of water will flow out the end regardless of whether the hose is pinched at the beginning, the middle or the end. Flow can, however, be maximized by a gradual reduction in hose diameter rather than a an abrupt reduction - as this causes increased turbulence and slows throughput.

It's Science


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> Disagree away but think of this - if a water hose is pinched anywhere down it's length the overall flow will be restricted, and the same amount of water will flow out the end regardless of whether the hose is pinched at the beginning, the middle or the end. Flow can, however, be maximized by a gradual reduction in hose diameter rather than a an abrupt reduction - as this causes increased turbulence and slows throughput.
> 
> It's Science


Are you really comparing traffic congestion to a kinked water hose?

How many on ramps or off ramps does a water hose have? Does water vary in size and speed like say a semi or a motorcycle? Do water molucules make emotional decisions to take directing traffic into their own hands in the name of 'science'?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

TheYanChamp said:


> Are you really comparing traffic congestion to a kinked water hose?
> 
> How many on ramps or off ramps does a water hose have? Does water vary in size and speed like say a semi or a motorcycle? Do water molucules make emotional decisions to take directing traffic into their own hands in the name of 'science'?
> 
> Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


Well, yes I am. It was taught in Practical Mathematics not only for transportation modeling but also data packet management - so it's not like it's my own stuff.


----------



## TheYanChamp (Mar 6, 2009)

allthumbs56 said:


> Well, yes I am. It was taught in Practical Mathematics not only for transportation modeling but also data packet management - so it's not like it's my own stuff.


Explain the article in question from a transportation modeling point of view. Fluid dynamics is not the best example to use IMO. I am arguing strictly for following the rules set out by our ministry of transportation simply so people dont make dangerous knee jerk moves in an act of policing what that believe to be true.


I could see your point if there was only one highway in the world and you had infinite space to line up.

The second you put another onramp or offramp up stream, you risk backing up traffic to the point of restricting that flow as well. This is why merge lanes are often built as long as they are, before a bottleneck to effectively 'store' traffic so vehicles up stream drom the bottleneck can still get on or off the hwy.

Look at the Massey Tunnel in BC. Restricts from six or seven lane to two lanes, its hell, but thats why they make lane reductions starting kms back, and also why there are so many lanes wide. If it was one long line it would back up to Ladner or the US border.

Its complicated and theres a reason the rules couldnt ever be enforced.



Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

TheYanChamp said:


> Look at the Massey Tunnel in BC. Restricts from six or seven lane to two lanes, its hell, but thats why they make lane reductions starting kms back, and also why there are so many lanes wide. If it was one long line it would back up to Ladner or the US border.
> 
> Its complicated and theres a reason the rules couldnt ever be enforced.
> 
> ...


This exactly my point (one of them anyway) they are essentially "tapering the hose".

Regarding On-ramps, they aren't long to accommodate "surplus cars" they're long to allow drivers to adjust speed and space for a smooth merge - it's the guy who uses the merge ramp as his personal highway, right up to the end, that causes us all so much grief.

It really is all fluid dynamics if you think about it.

It's also in the Driver's Handbook (MTO's anyway)


----------



## bolero (Oct 11, 2006)

Zipper merge can be rough on the short-and-curlies, if you are not careful


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

JBFairthorne said:


> A vehicle effectively blocking two lanes is always more dangerous than driving legally in one lane. I find it somewhat odd that so many people think it's unacceptable for someone in an uncongested lane to pass those in a backed up lane while at the same time somehow finding it acceptable for someone to ILLEGALLY block both lanes. But hey, whatever. Perhaps the real problem is people thinking it's okay taking it upon themselves to "direct" traffic in an illegal manner.


They are not blocking both lanes, though, they are only driving in one lane making everyone zipper merge.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Steadfastly said:


> They are not blocking both lanes, though, they are only driving in one lane making everyone zipper merge.


 What I was referring to was those people who take it upon themselves to illegally direct traffic by straddling two lanes making it impossible to pass on either side. So, yeah they ARE blocking two lanes...intentionally, and in the process, moving the congested area farther back from the actual merge. That doesn't improve the flow of traffic or create a safer situation at all. You know, I've seen this activity quite often from random people but NEVER seen a police car doing this. Why do you suppose that is?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

[QUOTE="JBFairthorne, post: 1108057, member: 13407"_]What I was referring to was those people who take it upon themselves to illegally direct traffic by straddling two lanes making it impossible to pass on either side._ So, yeah they ARE blocking two lanes...intentionally, and in the process, moving the congested area farther back from the actual merge. That doesn't improve the flow of traffic or create a safer situation at all. You know, I've seen this activity quite often from random people but NEVER seen a police car doing this. Why do you suppose that is?[/QUOTE]

I agree, straddling the two lanes is wrong. I have actually moved into the other lanes to stop people from plugging up the merging at the blocked point ahead and stayed in my place. Everytime the cars beside me know what I am doing and make room for me when I get back into the backed up lane. I don't try to move up but get back in my place as do others I have seen doing this.

I have also seen the effect when I or someone else does it. The traffic starts to move quicker. So, yes, the zipper merge system does work. Unfortunately, many ill-mannered drivers must be forced to do it.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> [QUOTE="JBFairthorne, post: 1108057, member: 13407"_]What I was referring to was those people who take it upon themselves to illegally direct traffic by straddling two lanes making it impossible to pass on either side._ So, yeah they ARE blocking two lanes...intentionally, and in the process, moving the congested area farther back from the actual merge. That doesn't improve the flow of traffic or create a safer situation at all. You know, I've seen this activity quite often from random people but NEVER seen a police car doing this. Why do you suppose that is?


I agree, straddling the two lanes is wrong. I have actually moved into the other lanes to stop people from plugging up the merging at the blocked point ahead and stayed in my place. Everytime the cars beside me know what I am doing and make room for me when I get back into the backed up lane. I don't try to move up but get back in my place as do others I have seen doing this.

I have also seen the effect when I or someone else does it. The traffic starts to move quicker. So, yes, the zipper merge system does work. Unfortunately, many ill-mannered drivers must be forced to do it.[/QUOTE]
But isn't what you're doing the same? Are you not stopping the cars from passing?


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> I agree, straddling the two lanes is wrong. I have actually moved into the other lanes to stop people from plugging up the merging at the blocked point ahead and stayed in my place. Everytime the cars beside me know what I am doing and make room for me when I get back into the backed up lane. I don't try to move up but get back in my place as do others I have seen doing this.
> 
> I have also seen the effect when I or someone else does it. The traffic starts to move quicker. So, yes, the zipper merge system does work. Unfortunately, many ill-mannered drivers must be forced to do it.


But isn't what you're doing the same? Are you not stopping the cars from passing?[/QUOTE]

Yes. I am forcing them to do the zipper merge.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

Hey, if you want to drive in a legal lane and not pass anyone, preventing others behind you from doing the same, knock yourself out. Just don't kid yourself that you're improving the situation. All you're doing is pushing the merge point farther behind the actual merge point. You're actions don't, in any way, force people to zipper merge properly, it just forces them to merge at a different point in the road.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

JBFairthorne said:


> Hey, if you want to drive in a legal lane and not pass anyone, preventing others behind you from doing the same, knock yourself out. Just don't kid yourself that you're improving the situation. All you're doing is pushing the merge point farther behind the actual merge point. You're actions don't, in any way, force people to zipper merge properly, it just forces them to merge at a different point in the road.


I have actually seen the traffic starting to move faster when this is done, whether by me or someone else. The reason is that the zipper merge works. When people are racing up the open lane and cutting everyone off by cutting in, forcing people to brake, that just adds to the backup. I am sure you are intelligent enough to recognize this.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

I'm intelligent enough to realize that there's nothing preventing them from racing up behind YOU in an otherwise open lane and then cutting everyone off by cutting in...at a point farther behind the actual merge. Don't kid yourself that your self appointed "policing" of the affected area is going to change someone else's driving habits. I would assume that what you're doing, in some way, makes you feel like you're doing a good deed but it's not really a solution. Really, there's only one solution, people not being so worried about whether or not someone gets ahead of them and letting people in regardless. The problem usually isn't the people trying to merge (wherever it may be). The root of the problem is people not being allowed to merge. If people just made an effort to make space (or just left space between the car in front of them as a matter of course) for others to merge without getting bent out of shape and riding the guy's bumper in front of them because, "I'm not gonna let this asshole trying to pass people merge in front of ME!", this would be a non-issue. At least, that's how I see it.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

JBFairthorne said:


> I'm intelligent enough to realize that there's nothing preventing them from racing up behind YOU in an otherwise open lane and then cutting everyone off by cutting in...at a point farther behind the actual merge. Don't kid yourself that your self appointed "policing" of the affected area is going to change someone else's driving habits. I would assume that what you're doing, in some way, makes you feel like you're doing a good deed but it's not really a solution. Really, there's only one solution, people not being so worried about whether or not someone gets ahead of them and letting people in regardless. The problem usually isn't the people trying to merge (wherever it may be). The root of the problem is people not being allowed to merge. If people just made an effort to make space (or just left space between the car in front of them as a matter of course) for others to merge without getting bent out of shape and riding the guy's bumper in front of them because, "I'm not gonna let this asshole trying to pass people merge in front of ME!", this would be a non-issue. At least, that's how I see it.


Yes, the problem is lack of love and consideration for one another and you are correct that if the attitude changed, it would be a non-issue. In our world of today with values deteriorating, please don't hold your breath. And, no I have no false perceptions that this will change anyone's driving habits.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

In the final analysis, what we need to overcome is human nature. I drove from Welland to St. Kitts this afternoon in a bit of a snow storm. Not bad - the roads were greasy/shushy. We were putzing along at 60 km in the driving lane quite safely. The passing lane was doing about 2 clicks faster. That was enough to cause the asshats to flick back and forth to gain a length or 2.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> In the final analysis, what we need to overcome is human nature. I drove from Welland to St. Kitts this afternoon in a bit of a snow storm. Not bad - the roads were greasy/shushy. We were putzing along at 60 km in the driving lane quite safely. The passing lane was doing about 2 clicks faster. That was enough to cause the asshats to flick back and forth to gain a length or 2.


I have driven that highway for years. I find it is the easiest to just drive in the slow (inside) lane from Hamilton down to St. Kitts. It may take me 2-3 minutes longer but is a lot less stressful.


----------



## sorbz62 (Nov 15, 2011)

I have driven all over the world, including India, Egypt, African countries and Europe. I can without a doubt state that the (general) standard of driving in Canada is the worst in the Western world. Lack of observational skills, no signalling, poor positioning, no courtesy to others, speeding, tailgating etc.... Don't even get me started on roundabouts.... Appalling driving!


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Steadfastly said:


> I have driven that highway for years. I find it is the easiest to just drive in the slow (inside) lane from Hamilton down to St. Kitts. It may take me 2-3 minutes longer but is a lot less stressful.


You're thinking of the QEW - I was on the 406.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

sorbz62 said:


> I have driven all over the world, including India, Egypt, African countries and Europe. I can without a doubt state that the (general) standard of driving in Canada is the worst in the Western world. Lack of observational skills, no signalling, poor positioning, no courtesy to others, speeding, tailgating etc.... Don't even get me started on roundabouts.... Appalling driving!


I've done a lot of driving in several states and would have to say that my experience has been that (generally) big city US driving is worse than here.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

JBFairthorne said:


> I've done a lot of driving in several states and would have to say that my experience has been that (generally) big city US driving is worse than here.


My experience has been exactly the opposite. I've never seen anyone stop in the middle of a merge lane onto a freeway there. I've seen it numerous times up here. And in multiple provinces.


----------



## sorbz62 (Nov 15, 2011)

High/Deaf said:


> My experience has been exactly the opposite. I've never seen anyone stop in the middle of a merge lane onto a freeway there. I've seen it numerous times up here. And in multiple provinces.


This what I mean. In UK it is called merging and taught when learning to drive. In fact drivers on the main road (that which you are merging onto) signal and pullover to the next lane to allow you on.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

sorbz62 said:


> This what I mean. In UK it is called merging and taught when learning to drive. In fact drivers on the main road (that which you are merging onto) signal and pullover to the next lane to allow you on.


Yep, I was stunned at how Brits cruise through traffic circles. Like a work of art or a well choreographed dance routine. 

Canadian's intentions are all good, but their abilities are mostly bad. They have no awareness of what's going on around them and they cannot apparently see the big picture. Shoulder checking out here is a rare artform, practiced only by an exclusively small club. Don't get me going on signal lights - OMFG. I guess everyone aspires to owning a Bimmer and are in practice for the big purchase.


----------



## Steadfastly (Nov 14, 2008)

allthumbs56 said:


> You're thinking of the QEW - I was on the 406.


I was. Thanks for the correction.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Here's a video from the National Post explaining why the zipper merge makes sense.

It does not explain why so many drivers will not only punish those who do zipper-merge but presumably don't do it themselves. While they likely see themselves as crusaders against the "bad" people who drive properly, they themselves are the problem drivers.

Why Canadian drivers should all just adopt the zipper merge now that construction season is here


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

It’s every man for himself. If you see a gap go for it before someone else does. Roundabouts are fun - kinda like chicane in the middle of a long straight.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

Wardo said:


> It’s every man for himself. If you see a gap go for it before someone else does. Roundabouts are fun - kinda like chicane in the middle of a long straight.


Diving into an existing gap isn't usually a problem. It's people hanging back near the top of the ramp - blocking others from getting onto it - to wait for someone to make a gap for them and it's "polite" drivers who brake unnaturally - and thereby cause greater slowdowns in the traffic behind them - to let them in.

As for your enjoyment of roundabouts, maybe you'll get the champagne and the girl one day but I don't wanna be around to witness it.


----------



## allthumbs56 (Jul 24, 2006)

Wardo said:


> It’s every man for himself. If you see a gap go for it before someone else does. Roundabouts are fun - kinda like chicane in the middle of a long straight.


Roundabouts, Zipper Merges, Center Turning Lanes: The things that make poor drivers stop dead in their confusion - and cause accidents.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

boyscout said:


> ... maybe you'll get the champagne and the girl one day but I don't wanna be around to witness it.


Already done all that - won lottsa races ... lol


----------



## LanceT (Mar 7, 2014)

Wardo said:


> Roundabouts are fun - kinda like chicane in the middle of a long straight.


Especially in an overloaded F150.


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

boyscout said:


> Here's a video from the National Post explaining why the zipper merge makes sense.
> 
> It does not explain why so many drivers will not only punish those who do zipper-merge but presumably don't do it themselves. While they likely see themselves as crusaders against the "bad" people who drive properly, they themselves are the problem drivers.
> 
> Why Canadian drivers should all just adopt the zipper merge now that construction season is here


We’ve gone through this before. Yes, zipper merge is efficient. And if our roads were designed AND MARKED for it, it would work, and there would be unicorns and rainbows. However, almost all design and signage in Canada (and almost all in US) is LANE ENDS, NOT MERGE, so in that case, the guy that waits to the latest inch in the ending lane is, in fact, The Asshole. Every time.

Let me know when you get our dumbass road planners to change most of the LANE ENDS markings to MERGE markings, then we can talk about this rationally.


----------



## Budda (May 29, 2007)

LexxM3 said:


> Let me know when you get our dumbass road planners to change most of the LANE ENDS markings to MERGE markings, then we can talk about this rationally.


I bet if everyone posting here emailed their MPP and got at least 1 other person to email their MPP about the signage issue, and contacted their local news outlet about it, that it would gain enough traction to eventually cause change.

But who's actually willing to put in any real work to see any real change?

Also, if drivers can't figure out that "lane ends" is another term for "*merge* before you get to the end" then that raises the point that critical thinking should *perhaps* be touched on in driver's ed when it comes to reading road signs.


----------



## cboutilier (Jan 12, 2016)

Wardo said:


> It’s every man for himself. If you see a gap go for it before someone else does. Roundabouts are fun - kinda like chicane in the middle of a long straight.


Halifax put chicanes in the west end to deter traffic from cutting through the neighborhood. They're a lot of fun in my autocross car.


----------



## BSTheTech (Sep 30, 2015)

Signs don’t work for the intentionally ignorant. We had a new merge lane by my house. Anyone that tried to zipper merge was blocked by beater driving ********. Boy they’d get mad. It wasn’t until a media blitz came out that said zipper merging was correct (of course it fucking was) did people accept it (some still don’t). Roundabouts were/are another source of frustration here.


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

Budda said:


> Also, if drivers can't figure out that "lane ends" is another term for "*merge* before you get to the end" then that raises the point that critical thinking should *perhaps* be touched on in driver's ed when it comes to reading road signs.


It’s not that they CAN’T figure it out, they know the lane ends, they are not exceptionally stupid. They are just egotistical selfish assholes and that hurts everyone including themselves. Early merge is a) the required legal thing to do, and b) actually eliminates the end of the lane hard brake crunch slow downs. But they think they can gain an advantage, and that is the completely invalid thinking that kills the entire traffic flow.


----------



## BSTheTech (Sep 30, 2015)

Early merge is inefficient and plain wrong.


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

BSTheTech said:


> Early merge is inefficient and plain wrong.


Only for the selfish assholes.


----------



## BSTheTech (Sep 30, 2015)

LexxM3 said:


> Only for the selfish assholes.


Think about it.


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

BSTheTech said:


> Think about it.


If they were marked and taught as merges, I agree with you. But the current discussion is about lane ends, not merges.


----------



## BSTheTech (Sep 30, 2015)

What’s the diff?


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

BSTheTech said:


> What’s the diff?


Merge means everyone understands the zipper methodology. Lane ends mean that there are 3 points of view:

* the guy in the lane that doesn’t end has nothing to do, he has legal right of way
* the guy in ending lane that discovers he has to act, and does
* the guy in ending lane trying to game the system, and failing

The three unique points of view is what creates the conflict. Proper merge marking and taught zipper eliminates these points of view into a single one for everyone: merge.


----------



## JBFairthorne (Oct 11, 2014)

The only flaw in your logic is that both lanes don't merge into one. One lane merges into the other, meaning the cars in the lane being merged into still have right of way...as they should. In respect to right of way rules, merges and lane ends are exactly the same.


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

JBFairthorne said:


> The only flaw in your logic is that both lanes don't merge into one. One lane merges into the other, meaning the cars in the lane being merged into still have right of way...as they should.


When I talk about a real MERGE, I mean two lanes into one, no preferential lanes. See my notes in the early postings of this discussion for the specific examples. Zipper doesn’t work if there is a preferential/right-of-way lane.


----------



## BSTheTech (Sep 30, 2015)

You are correct about conflict, which is why all independent thought must be removed from the equation. Humans are horrible at making decisions in a herd. Zipper makes it easy for the lowest common denominator (which unfortunately rules our driving “experience”).


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

LexxM3 said:


> We’ve gone through this before. Yes, zipper merge is efficient. And if our roads were designed AND MARKED for it, it would work, and there would be unicorns and rainbows. However, almost all design and signage in Canada (and almost all in US) is LANE ENDS, NOT MERGE, so in that case, the guy that waits to the latest inch in the ending lane is, in fact, The Asshole. Every time.
> 
> Let me know when you get our dumbass road planners to change most of the LANE ENDS markings to MERGE markings, then we can talk about this rationally.


An odd argument. I'd be very surprised if most drivers didn't understand that they must merge from the ramp lane into the traffic lane. The place that they should do it (unless an opening is readily available earlier) is at the end of the ramp lane, where drivers in the traffic lane who can see that the ramp lane is ending should be ready to accommodate the mergers.

A Merge sign would probably help a bit - do you have the address of the Minister of Transportation? - but if most drivers are as challenged as you're suggesting they are then perhaps even more is needed. An animated dummy gesticulating, a large-screen movie, a set of traffic lights for each of the two lanes, a guitar player who leaps between each car in the traffic lane to permit a car to merge... ?


----------



## LexxM3 (Oct 12, 2009)

It's already been described, please read the rest of the notes above and on the initial posting last year of this thread.



boyscout said:


> I'd be very surprised if most drivers didn't understand that they must merge from the ramp lane into the traffic lane.


Yes, most understand. It's mostly not core intelligence or lack of understanding, even when we like to call them "idiots". It is selfish assholism (new word, I am trademarking it now ).



boyscout said:


> The place that they should do it (unless an opening is readily available earlier) is at the end of the ramp lane


Where are you getting that from? Where does it say or has ever been taught that you should wait until your lane ends before changing lanes into a lane that has legal right of way relative to you. The actual rules are: a) non-ending lane has right of way, b) ending lane should change when it's safe to do so. It is patently evident (for example by the very fact that this discussion exists at all) that end of the lane is NOT "when it's safe to do so."



boyscout said:


> where drivers in the traffic lane who can see that the ramp lane is ending should be ready to accommodate the mergers.


What drivers with the legal right of way see or not see if entirely irrelevant to the proper flow of traffic (but it certainly has something to do with *safety*). They have legal right of way, it's not up to them to "change lane when safe to do so."


----------



## Guest (May 23, 2018)

LexxM3 said:


> new word, I am trademarking it now


It's been done. lol


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

LexxM3 said:


> <snip>Where are you getting that from? Where does it say or has ever been taught that you should wait until your lane ends before changing lanes into a lane that has legal right of way relative to you. The actual rules are: a) non-ending lane has right of way, b) ending lane should change when it's safe to do so. It is patently evident (for example by the very fact that this discussion exists at all) that end of the lane is NOT "when it's safe to do so."


What if I made it up? Would the logic escape you any more than it seems to be doing? Did you WATCH the video?

The fact is, "zipper merge" studies have shown that use of the full length of the ramp lane (or the obstructed traffic lane) improves efficiency. It's the very essence of zipper merge that the full length of both sides of the "zipper" be employed and that most of the merging occurs at one predictable point (as it does in a zipper, therein the name for it!). The exception is if there's an obvious opening at an earlier point that can be taken* without disrupting the flow of traffic* in either the lane that's ending or the flowing traffic lane.

I truly don't understand why this isn't obvious to you.

A driver entering the highway on a ramp should NOT block other vehicles and wait near the top of the ramp for someone to let him in. Nor should a driver in an obstructed traffic lane stop or significantly slow down far back from the obstruction and wait to be let into the remaining free traffic lane. The effects of doing otherwise are certain to slow traffic in the ramp/obstructed lane, and probably disrupt the smooth flow of traffic in the flowing traffic lane. That's pretty obvious, isn't it?

The end of the ramp, or the obstruction in an obstructed lane, is a point known to drivers in both the ramp/obstructed lane and the traffic lane. It's at that known point that each driver in the flowing traffic lane *should* (though not required by law to do so) permit one ramp/obstructed lane driver to merge between themselves and the vehicle ahead.

This is exactly what zipper merge means!!



LexxM3 said:


> What drivers with the legal right of way see or not see if entirely irrelevant to the proper flow of traffic (but it certainly has something to do with *safety*). They have legal right of way, it's not up to them to "change lane when safe to do so."


Who said anything about the traffic lane drivers changing lanes?! Did you WATCH the video?

In the scenario in the video and in MY head, the drivers in the traffic lane with the right of way *have no lane to change into* unless they change into the ramp/obstructed land!! That would be pretty crazy! So what scenario are YOU thinking about?

Drivers in the flowing traffic lane *should* permit one vehicle from the ramp/obstructed lane to enter their lane in front of them. Assholism notwithstanding, many will. Those who don't permit a merge are both ignorant (they don't know about the science supporting zipper merge) and probably belligerent assholes determined to punish educated drivers who are properly trying to zipper-merge.

When done as described the zipper merge acts to more-smoothly merge two lanes of traffic into one, a benefit to all of the drivers there.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

LexxM3 said:


> <snip>Where are you getting that from? Where does it say or has ever been taught that you should wait until your lane ends before changing lanes into a lane that has legal right of way relative to you. The actual rules are: a) non-ending lane has right of way, b) ending lane should change when it's safe to do so. It is patently evident (for example by the very fact that this discussion exists at all) that end of the lane is NOT "when it's safe to do so."


I just had a thought. Could you *possibly* be arguing about a situation in which the flowing traffic lane is flowing at near-full speed? 

Zipper merge has no place in that scenario; the ramp/obstructed lane drivers have to get up to speed and insert themselves as best they can while interfering as little as possible with the free-flowing traffic.

Zipper merge is *entirely* a discussion about heavy traffic situations in which an on-ramp or an obstructed lane has to be merged into densely-packed slow-moving traffic in a flowing traffic lane.

Confusion eliminated? If not I'm still confused about why you're arguing about the obvious and proven fact of zipper merge's efficiency.


----------



## High/Deaf (Aug 19, 2009)

Wardo said:


> It’s every man for himself. If you see a gap go for it before someone else does. Roundabouts are fun - kinda like chicane in the middle of a long straight.


There's a little strip of road in France, referred to as the Mulsanne straight, that is a lot of fun 362 days a year. It has two roundabouts, but you have to do the 2nd one backwards to how the pros do it (going either way). And the day between Thursday practice and the start on Saturday is especially busy, entertaining and crazy.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

boyscout said:


> One of my driving peeves, hurrah for this article:
> 
> All hail the zipper merge: How Canadian politeness is killing the efficiency of our highways
> 
> ...


I always let people merge. But, when I'm near the end of the merge lane and you've had plenty of opportunity to merge into traffic behind me yet you decided to speed up, bypassing everyone that's been waiting in traffic much longer than you, I won't let you in. You aren't entitled to get in front of everyone, forcing traffic behind you to brake as you rudely punt yourself into traffic at a speed which forces you to brake hard and ruins the flow of traffic.


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

1SweetRide said:


> I always let people merge. But, when I'm near the end of the merge lane and you've had plenty of opportunity to merge into traffic behind me yet you decided to speed up, bypassing everyone that's been waiting in traffic much longer than you, I won't let you in. You aren't entitled to get in front of everyone, forcing traffic behind you to brake as you rudely punt yourself into traffic at a speed which forces you to brake hard and ruins the flow of traffic.


Well then, read on in the thread and watch the video I posted a couple of pages back (post #66). You're part of the problem, not the solution, and if you take the time to educate yourself you'll learn why.

I'll grant you that there are too many on the road, especially in Canada, who don't understand the zipper merge principle and its efficacy, so that people like me appear to be racing up the empty lane to get ahead of you. The fact is, that ramp or obstructed lane should be full all the way to the end where drivers should merge. When more people get that idea then you'll find that your traffic in the flowing lane should flow better than it does with people (probably including you) jamming themselves into the flowing lane well before they should / need to.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

boyscout said:


> Well then, read on in the thread and watch the video I posted a couple of pages back (post #66). You're part of the problem, not the solution, and if you take the time to educate yourself you'll learn why.
> 
> I'll grant you that there are too many on the road, especially in Canada, who don't understand the zipper merge principle and its efficacy, so that people like me appear to be racing up the empty lane to get ahead of you. The fact is, that ramp or obstructed lane should be full all the way to the end where drivers should merge. When more people get that idea then you'll find that your traffic in the flowing lane should flow better than it does with people (probably including you) jamming themselves into the flowing lane well before they should / need to.


Ok, I read the article. I don't believe in what they are saying. How can a bunch of people, trying to merge at the last possible instant be more efficient that travelling with the speed of the traffic and merging before it becomes a last-minute lane change?


----------



## boyscout (Feb 14, 2009)

1SweetRide said:


> Ok, I read the article. I don't believe in what they are saying. How can a bunch of people, trying to merge at the last possible instant be more efficient that travelling with the speed of the traffic and merging before it becomes a last-minute lane change?


Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau would just say, "trust me, it works", no matter how many ways you asked for an explanation.

I've not been involved in any of the studies, but studies have been done to prove the principle. I'd *guess* that the improved traffic flow comes primarily from having a known merge point at which drivers can more-smoothly cooperate together to merge.

Your way often involves slowing the traffic behind you unpredictably in the ramp/obstructed lane as you jockey into the flowing lane, and often involves drivers in the flowing lane acting more-unpredictably to let you in. Most every twitch in a line of dense flowing traffic has a high potential - a likelihood - of an amplified effect further back in the lane that will slow it down.** The typical result is a longer line of traffic moving more slowly and unpredictably past the obstacle or the end of the ramp.

If the twitches are evened out into mostly-regular small slowdowns then most drivers won't be over-reacting to twitches - they won't even much notice slowdowns as pulses, just a slowdown - resulting in a smoother and faster flow for all.

At least that's my theory. If you don't buy it then you can find more information on the web.

** Per twitches getting amplified in dense traffic, I read decades ago about a study in which a vehicle was rigged to put on its brake lights without applying brakes. The investigators found (I'm fuzzy on details now) that in traffic of a certain density the act of simply putting on the brake lights could cause traffic to stop completely some distance behind their vehicle.


----------



## 1SweetRide (Oct 25, 2016)

boyscout said:


> Liberal Finance Minister Bill Morneau would just say, "trust me, it works", no matter how many ways you asked for an explanation.
> 
> I've not been involved in any of the studies, but studies have been done to prove the principle. I'd *guess* that the improved traffic flow comes primarily from having a known merge point at which drivers can more-smoothly cooperate together to merge.
> 
> ...


Well yes, your last point is proven every time heavy traffic come to a hill. One driver, not paying attention, slows down all traffic behind him exponentially. The way I think it works well is I see a flow of traffic trying to merge up ahead, I gradually increase the distance between me and the car in front and I leave lots of space for one merging vehicle to get into the flow without slowing down or speeding up. The driver behind me does the same thing. Seems a better idea than last minute merging to me. The National Post has a flair for the dramatic and I don't trust everything they write.


----------



## Wardo (Feb 5, 2010)

I’m on the 401 one every day and I don’t see that this zipper thing matters at all.

Bigger problem is people running red lights and dive bombing intersections on the open access roads. Advanced green they keep coming fast and furious long after it’s gone red and right turns on a red they don’t even slow never mind stop first. Real easy to pick off a pedestrian on a right turn dive bomb against a red when your attention is focused to the left because that traffic flow is rolling on the green and you gotta jam yourself into it. Need to loosen up the carry laws here because some of these people would only ever be more courteous if there was a chance of them getting shot ... lol


----------



## knight_yyz (Mar 14, 2015)

Someone mentioned that the signage has to change, but no one reads the signs we have now! No left turn? No U turn? In Hamilton I see someone with their flashers going at the side of the road. Look up and see the No Stopping sign, every day. So many drivers just don;t give a crap. When I am on afternoons I always have to stop at a particular light and there is usually 6 or 7 cars waiting to turn left. Huge no u turn sign. But 5 of those 7 cars will make the u turn. 

Milton Ontario has a 3 way roundabout that is approached by two lanes. You cannot go straight through. (yet) The signage implies left lane goes left and up the escarpment, and right lane goes right into the town of Milton, but because it is two lanes, people use the left to pass the cars on the right while in the roundabout. I see it every single day on my way to work, and again on my way home. The problem is, whether you see the sign or not, they all know the right hand land ends 70 meters past the roundabout. So even though you are in the right lane turning right, you almost have to merge into the left lane immediately. So the car in the right lane usually has to stop to let the cars pass him on the left, even though they all made illegal turns. The left lane is for the people coming from the escarpment and going into town, they stay left and go straight through, Then there is the idiot who screams through the right turn lane so the guy going straight through has to slow down or stop. 

Most people don't even know what an acceleration lane is, but we want them to zipper merge? My biggest pet peeve is the idiot hanging back 900 meters from the car in front of him while in the passing lane during rush hour. Meanwhile while he/she is on their "Sunday Drive" in the middle of rush hour, all the cars in the next lane are whizzing by and piling into the empty space while moron attempts to keep the 900 meter gap....If you can't keep 2 chevrons between you and the guy in front of you, stay the hell out of the passing lane!


----------

