|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
scott wrote:
> that is pretty much the most inefficient way of doing it.
Huh. Odd, I can't see that it makes a difference really how far back you
merge, in that kind of range.
> 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 :-)
Yes. That's the basic problem with prisoner dilemma sorts of problems.
> 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.
I'm not sure this is the case. It's more efficient to merge at speed than it
is to merge from a stop. (That's why they don't put stop-signs at the end of
the on ramps to highways.) Running up to the end of the lane wouldn't be a
problem if it didn't slow down everyone else merging in.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Human nature dictates that toothpaste tubes spend
much longer being almost empty than almost full.
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |