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