 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> This morning I shuffled along in a queue of traffic because one of the
> lanes had been coned off. With tedious inevitability, some guy in his
> shiny BWM SUV drives straight up the empty lane
Clever guy. Maybe that's how he can afford a BMW SUV?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> This morning I shuffled along in a queue of traffic because one of the
>> lanes had been coned off. With tedious inevitability, some guy in his
>> shiny BWM SUV drives straight up the empty lane
>
> Clever guy. Maybe that's how he can afford a BMW SUV?
Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like
this and just waited their turn there wouldn't *be* a huge queue of
waiting traffic in the first place?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like this
> and just waited their turn
Err, the whole point of having two lanes is so that you can overtake slower
cars if you want to.
> there wouldn't *be* a huge queue of waiting traffic in the first place?
Incorrect.
The most efficient way is for everyone to stay in their lanes until the
closure, then zip merge one car at a time from each lane. In fact at some
places in the UK (I've seen them around Reading) they even have big signs
telling you to do this (to prevent the queue going back too far), and it
seems to be how everyone here in Germany behaves by default (IME). The
queue will be half the length then, and there will be no concept of "pushing
in" or "waiting your turn", so everyone is happy.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like
>> this and just waited their turn
>
> Err, the whole point of having two lanes is so that you can overtake
> slower cars if you want to.
Sure, you don't have to pull over until the lane actually closes. But
when there are speed restrictions and big signs saying "get in lane
now", that doesn't mean you drive straight past so you can push in at
the front.
> The most efficient way is for everyone to stay in their lanes until the
> closure, then zip merge one car at a time from each lane.
I agree.
(Well, until a big lorry comes along that's the size of 6 cars. But that
doesn't happen very much...)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote in message
news:4b0bfd65@news.povray.org...
> This morning I shuffled along in a queue of traffic because one of the
> lanes had been coned off. With tedious inevitability, some guy in his
> shiny BWM SUV drives straight up the empty lane to where the cones start
> and then expects to cut in infront of everybody else. I mean, it *is*
> his personal road, after all...
There are two ways of looking at it. It's not his fault if everyone else
merged prematurely. Why should he not take advantage of a pefectly good lane
until it's time to merge? But it's a good example of the case that when
there's an opportunity, there will be people who will take it.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 09:20:20 -0600, Neeum Zawan wrote:
> On 11/23/09 21:37, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> But that would be being overly pedantic, too. ;)
>
> Not on the Inter-nets.
LOL
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 15:54:34 +0000, Invisible wrote:
>>> This morning I shuffled along in a queue of traffic because one of the
>>> lanes had been coned off. With tedious inevitability, some guy in his
>>> shiny BWM SUV drives straight up the empty lane
>>
>> Clever guy. Maybe that's how he can afford a BMW SUV?
>
> Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like
> this and just waited their turn there wouldn't *be* a huge queue of
> waiting traffic in the first place?
That's the difference between a mindset of "every man for himself" and
"we're all in this together".
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
> The most efficient way is for everyone to stay in their lanes until the
> closure, then zip merge one car at a time from each lane.
Right. But if you go all the way up to the front, passing people who have
already zip-merged, then you're ignoring the rule that keeps the traffic
flowing.
The problem is that this person gets to the front, the person beside him has
already let someone in, and now there isn't enough room to let this second
person in without slowing down and making a hole. Not just a hole big
enough to merge into, but a hole big enough to merge into from being stopped
instead of being at the same speed as traffic is already going.
In order to efficiently merge safely, you have to have both lanes finished
merging before you get to the end of either lane. Zooping up to the front
just because the people before you have already merged means you're no
longer zip-merging. Instead, you have a zipper with an extra tooth on one
side, and you know how well *that* works.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
You know the kamikaze monsters in Serious Sam
with the bombs for hands, that go AAAAAHHHHHHHH!
I want that for a ring tone.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Or, more correctly: Maybe if people stopped doing stupid things like
>> this and just waited their turn there wouldn't *be* a huge queue of
>> waiting traffic in the first place?
>
> That's the difference between a mindset of "every man for himself" and
> "we're all in this together".
Yeah. Prisoner's Dilemma and all that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> In order to efficiently merge safely, you have to have both lanes finished
> merging before you get to the end of either lane. Zooping up to the front
> just because the people before you have already merged means you're no
> longer zip-merging. Instead, you have a zipper with an extra tooth on one
> side, and you know how well *that* works.
Indeed, the important point is that everyone should merge at the same point
to make it efficient. The obvious solution is that everyone merges near to
the lane closure, not randomly 500 metres, 1 km or 2 km back up the road as
they feel like it - that is pretty much the most inefficient way of doing
it.
Anyway, these are the *average* efficiencies, if you're the one who always
merges at the end of the lane then you'll be better off if everyone else
merges sooner :-) What the people who merge really early don't realise, is
that if they merged later not only would they get through quicker, but
everyone else would on avereage too. So in fact it is them that are causing
the problem, not the ones who merge at the end of the lane.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
