Question for People Who Slow Down and "Let Them In"

Scott en Aztlán wrote:

> Here's a question for you people who slow down and let another driver
> merge into your lane in front of you:

That would be me.

> When you're approaching an intersection, and there is a car waiting
> there to turn left, do you slow down and wait for the guy to turn left
> in front of you?

No (with some exceptions)

> If not, why not?

The reasons are simple and completely egoistic [1]. If I collide with the
car turning left, the fault is clearly the other driver's. OTOH if I
collide with someone doing a lane merge, various alternatives are possible.
Besides, the law says you have to slow down.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utility_theory

--
Nate Nagel thinks "ad hominem" means incorrect, while "college graduate"
Paul wants to vote independant (sic) next time.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> Here's a question for you people who slow down and let another driver
> merge into your lane in front of you:

Here

> When you're approaching an intersection, and there is a car waiting
> there to turn left, do you slow down and wait for the guy to turn left
> in front of you? If not, why not?

Provided the light is green with the other driver and red with me.
Otherwise no; I have the right of way.

"Scott en Aztlán" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:30:46 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > wrote:
>
>>> Here's a question for you people who slow down and let another driver
>>> merge into your lane in front of you:
>>
>>Here
>>
>>> When you're approaching an intersection, and there is a car waiting
>>> there to turn left, do you slow down and wait for the guy to turn left
>>> in front of you? If not, why not?
>>
>>no; I have the right of way.
>
> Thank you for falling right into my trap.

Scott, you forgot the "Evil Cackle"

> You also have the right of way when another driver wants to merge into
> your lane; the driver who wishes to merge is required by law to yield
> the right of way to you. Why do you needlessly yield it in one
> situation but not in the other?

True, I have the right of way in both situations. In letting another driver
merge same-direction, I'm not stopping my forward momentum--on a limited
access highway there's no stopping, so my flow is slowed only
infinitesimally. But on a street, to allow a facing driver to make a left
in front of me requires me to stop. Plus there is no guarantee that the
turning driver will have the sense to move when he sees I've stopped--it's
likely he'll just sit there and stare stupidly at the intersection, waiting
for someone else to make a move.

I might do it anyway if it looks like the driver is paying attention, is
clearly ready to move, and there's a very long line behind me. But at a
controlled intersection, nope.

Skip Elliott Bowman wrote:
> "Scott en Aztl=E1n" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:30:46 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >>> Here's a question for you people who slow down and let another
driver
> >>> merge into your lane in front of you:
> >>
> >>Here
> >>
> >>> When you're approaching an intersection, and there is a car
waiting
> >>> there to turn left, do you slow down and wait for the guy to turn
left
> >>> in front of you? If not, why not?
> >>
> >>no; I have the right of way.
> >
> > Thank you for falling right into my trap.
>
> Scott, you forgot the "Evil Cackle"
>
> > You also have the right of way when another driver wants to merge
into
> > your lane; the driver who wishes to merge is required by law to
yield
> > the right of way to you. Why do you needlessly yield it in one
> > situation but not in the other?
>
> True, I have the right of way in both situations. In letting another
driver
> merge same-direction, I'm not stopping my forward momentum--on a
limited
> access highway there's no stopping, so my flow is slowed only
> infinitesimally.

You must have better drivers than we do here. Allowing someone to
merge in front of you pretty much insures that you'll have to hit the
binders and slow to about 40 MPH. Thus I'll either change lanes or
just hold my line and let the merger deal with it, depending on traffic
- but I won't slow one iota to allow a merger in.

nate

"N8N" > wrote in message
oups.com...

[snip]

You must have better drivers than we do here. Allowing someone to
merge in front of you pretty much insures that you'll have to hit the
binders and slow to about 40 MPH. Thus I'll either change lanes or
just hold my line and let the merger deal with it, depending on traffic
- but I won't slow one iota to allow a merger in.

***

And I'll reply:

Using a four-second following distance sort of eliminates that problem, even
in 20mph bumper-to-bumper traffic. Heck, I'm about to start using five
seconds, so that the merger can have a two second distance from the car in
front of them, and I can have a two second distance from the merging car.

And since I take the position that the merger is the one forced into thru
traffic due to archaic traffic engineering designs not equipped to deal with
today's agressive road bullies--sometimes with additional hazard of concrete
wall on the shoulder of the road preventing the merger from bailing out on
the shoulder... as long as the vehicle is positionally in front of me at the
point the merge lane line markings come to an end, it's trivially easy to
let off the accelerator pedal, allow the vehicle to merge in, then continue
with the flow of traffic. Also, if I have to brake, then it's no big deal, I
just use the brake pedal.

Fortunatly, this isn't an issue once I am able to get into the number 2 or
number 3 lane of a 4-lane interstate highway.

Oh yeah, and I also yield to mergers when they turn the right three lanes
into an exit-only freeway junction, again, due to bad traffic engineering
that turned legal keep-right driving into a forced three-lane change just to
stay on the interstate (e.g. the I-5/Hwy 14 junction off the I-210). If they
want in, and they signal, and are a minimum of 1 second in front of me, I'll
go ahead and yield.

In the end, it's not something I have to do, but it's something I choose to
do. A little bit of consideration doesn't hurt anyone except for thsoe who
are MFFY road bullies.

Others will probably vary, of course.

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "N8N" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
>
> [snip]
>
> You must have better drivers than we do here. Allowing someone to
> merge in front of you pretty much insures that you'll have to hit the
> binders and slow to about 40 MPH. Thus I'll either change lanes or
> just hold my line and let the merger deal with it, depending on
traffic
> - but I won't slow one iota to allow a merger in.
>
> ***
>
> And I'll reply:
>
> Using a four-second following distance sort of eliminates that
problem, even
> in 20mph bumper-to-bumper traffic. Heck, I'm about to start using
five
> seconds, so that the merger can have a two second distance from the
car in
> front of them, and I can have a two second distance from the merging
car.
>
> And since I take the position that the merger is the one forced into
thru
> traffic due to archaic traffic engineering designs not equipped to
deal with
> today's agressive road bullies--sometimes with additional hazard of
concrete
> wall on the shoulder of the road preventing the merger from bailing
out on
> the shoulder... as long as the vehicle is positionally in front of me
at the
> point the merge lane line markings come to an end, it's trivially
easy to
> let off the accelerator pedal, allow the vehicle to merge in, then
continue
> with the flow of traffic. Also, if I have to brake, then it's no big
deal, I
> just use the brake pedal.
>
> Fortunatly, this isn't an issue once I am able to get into the number
2 or
> number 3 lane of a 4-lane interstate highway.
>
> Oh yeah, and I also yield to mergers when they turn the right three
lanes
> into an exit-only freeway junction, again, due to bad traffic
engineering
> that turned legal keep-right driving into a forced three-lane change
just to
> stay on the interstate (e.g. the I-5/Hwy 14 junction off the I-210).
If they
> want in, and they signal, and are a minimum of 1 second in front of
me, I'll
> go ahead and yield.
>
> In the end, it's not something I have to do, but it's something I
choose to
> do. A little bit of consideration doesn't hurt anyone except for
thsoe who
> are MFFY road bullies.
>
> Others will probably vary, of course.


When traffic is flowing at 70+ MPH, a 4-second following distance
(ludicrous anyway, 2 seconds is all that's necessary and more than
you're likely to get around here) a 40 MPH merger is still a problem.
Your idea of "consideration" causes more problems than it's worth in
that situation.

Please note that I did say I'd move a lane over if I could, but if I
can't, well then tough luck to the merger. He can either find the
little skinny pedal on the right, or get in behind me, his choice. I
have the right of way, and these rules are there for a reason - to
insure smooth traffic flow.

OTOH, your hitting the brakes for a merger in heavy traffic can cause a
"standing wave" of braking, and if anyone's tailgating in that wave it
can actually cause traffic to go stop-and-go behind you when there's no
real reason for it to do so.

nate

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> And since I take the position that the merger is the one forced into thru
> traffic due to archaic traffic engineering designs not equipped to deal
> with today's agressive road bullies--sometimes with additional hazard of
> concrete wall on the shoulder of the road preventing the merger from
> bailing out on the shoulder... as long as the vehicle is positionally in
> front of me at the point the merge lane line markings come to an end, it's
> trivially easy to let off the accelerator pedal, allow the vehicle to
> merge in, then continue with the flow of traffic. Also, if I have to
> brake, then it's no big deal, I just use the brake pedal.

You are clearly one of the very few sane individuals in this idiotic
newsgroup.

Ironically, the same morons who whine "MFFY,MFFY,MFFY,MFFY" then go on and
claim they won't slow one iota for others. Hypocrites.

--
Nate Nagel thinks "ad hominem" means incorrect, while "college graduate"
Paul wants to vote independant (sic) next time.

On Thu, 17 Feb 2005 05:30:46 GMT, "Skip Elliott Bowman"
> wrote:

>> When you're approaching an intersection, and there is a car waiting
>> there to turn left, do you slow down and wait for the guy to turn left
>> in front of you? If not, why not?
>
>Provided the light is green with the other driver and red with me.
>Otherwise no; I have the right of way.

Bzzzt. There is no such thing, and you never have it.

> > You also have the right of way when another driver wants to merge
into
> > your lane; the driver who wishes to merge is required by law to
yield
> > the right of way to you. Why do you needlessly yield it in one
> > situation but not in the other?
>
> True, I have the right of way in both situations. In letting another
driver
> merge same-direction, I'm not stopping my forward momentum--on a
limited
> access highway there's no stopping, so my flow is slowed only
> infinitesimally.

You really are screwing it up for everyone else behind you though.
Just keep going and make the merge impaired driver get with it.

"Larry Bud" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>> > You also have the right of way when another driver wants to merge
> into
>> > your lane; the driver who wishes to merge is required by law to
> yield
>> > the right of way to you. Why do you needlessly yield it in one
>> > situation but not in the other?
>>
>> True, I have the right of way in both situations. In letting another
> driver
>> merge same-direction, I'm not stopping my forward momentum--on a
> limited
>> access highway there's no stopping, so my flow is slowed only
>> infinitesimally.
>
> You really are screwing it up for everyone else behind you though.
> Just keep going and make the merge impaired driver get with it.

By "everybody else", you mean you, right?

If you're referring to merging onto a freeway, ITA it's the responsibility
of the merging driver to insert himself into the flow of traffic. But if I
can't move over a lane, there's room behind me and none ahead, I don't see a
problem. The issue solves itself.

What I have a problem with is when I enter a freeway at the same speed as
the freeway traffic, and one car to my left won't let me in--he just matches
my speed. It's spite on their part, because I know they see my blinker, and
they could move over as they see me and the line ahead of/behind me trying
to merge. They just won't make way even if they could. It's the principle
of the thing, I suppose--they'd rather mergers run off the road than give on
inch of all the room around them.

A little shared consideration goes a long ways.