• Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Depends. If there’s lots of traffic, yes. If it’s sparse enough that you can merge without slowing people down too much, just do it early.

    • IrateAnteater@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, that’s the big asterisk on the “zipper merging is more efficient” premise. It assumes that things are already bottlenecked. If you have the space to merge early without slowing down, you do that. People trying to force their way in at the last minute (when they didn’t have to) is one of the things that triggers the bottleneck in the first place.

      • rainwall@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        5 months ago

        Zipper merge is always the most efficient if people dont prevent merges, regardless of road conditions. It means both open lanes are used to move cars forward until the last moment when they cannot. “Move over early” means less throughput in the system, no matter “how open” one lane is at some point.

        By blocking merges, you causes braking, which is what causes traffic. You framing people driving efficiently to prevent traffic as “people trying to force their way in last minute” means its you creating traffic, not them.

        You’re arguing from a sense of moral suppority, I.e “I got in line early, you should have to,” not from a sense of efficently moving cars down a road.

        • taiyang@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          5 months ago

          It’s rare, but I think they’re referring to when it’s open enough and running at optimal speeds. It happened the other day on a side street during an off hour, the free lane couldn’t cut to the front without going like 70mph in a 40mph zone.

          Of course a muscle car did just that, but still.