On-ramp STOP

"John David Galt" > wrote in message
...
> Watson wrote:
>> I can't stand the morons who actually try to merge, but insist on going
>> about 45mph when the interstate traffic they're attempting to merge with
>> is goin about 70 + !! What utter idiocy.
>
> Some of those same idiots have posted here, asking why no one will let
> them in. Well duh...

I hate those kinds of people too, and I usually find it easiest to cruise at
least one lane over from the right lane on 6+ lane highways (at least 3 each
way), and briefly merge to the left lane (going with the flow of the traffic
in that lane) while passing acceleration lanes.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
> > In article >,
> > Brent P > wrote:
> >>Holy crap, they are actually teaching people this. This is worse than
the online
> >>traffic school that says each driver should wait 2 seconds after the car
in front of
> >>them starts moving once the light turns green. (2 seconds, car 1 goes, 2
seconds, car
> >>2 goes, 2 seconds, car 3 goes.... and given most lights and sloth
acceleration, it
> >>will be red by car 3)
> >
> > Was the claimed reason to avoid getting speared by a red light runner
> > if you are first in line at the light?
>
> For the first vehicle yes, for all the others, it was to have an immidate
2
> second following distance.

That's a good start... although the more recent versions of the California
DMV Driver handbook now recommend 3 seconds following distance.

Gradual acceleration also helps if someone doesn't want to actually remain
stopped for 2 (or 3 seconds), such as not exceeding 2500 rpm in each gear
(which is effortless in an automatic transmission) and not closing in
rapidly on the rear bumper of the car in front.

So, other than impatience and/or a stick-shift driver who simply doesn't
want to have to downshift as much--there doesn't seem to be any logical
reason why a 2 (or 3) second minimum following distance shouldn't be the
norm on surface streets as well as the highways and interstates.

[snip...]

In article >, Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
>> In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>> > In article >,
>> > Brent P > wrote:
>> >>Holy crap, they are actually teaching people this. This is worse than
> the online
>> >>traffic school that says each driver should wait 2 seconds after the car
> in front of
>> >>them starts moving once the light turns green. (2 seconds, car 1 goes, 2
> seconds, car
>> >>2 goes, 2 seconds, car 3 goes.... and given most lights and sloth
> acceleration, it
>> >>will be red by car 3)
>> >
>> > Was the claimed reason to avoid getting speared by a red light runner
>> > if you are first in line at the light?
>>
>> For the first vehicle yes, for all the others, it was to have an immidate
> 2
>> second following distance.
>
> That's a good start... although the more recent versions of the California
> DMV Driver handbook now recommend 3 seconds following distance.

Are you nuts? traffic jams are bad enough not to be killing intersection
throughput with 2 second delays. In germany when the light goes green
everyone starts moving, that's the way it should be. This is how you move
a lot of traffic without having every road being 8 lanes wide.

> Gradual acceleration also helps if someone doesn't want to actually remain
> stopped for 2 (or 3 seconds), such as not exceeding 2500 rpm in each gear
> (which is effortless in an automatic transmission) and not closing in
> rapidly on the rear bumper of the car in front.

So you like sloth. (btw some cars, like mine move quite well shifting
around that RPM) Sloth movement at intersections reduces throughput and
causes congestion.

> So, other than impatience and/or a stick-shift driver who simply doesn't
> want to have to downshift as much

The problem is the automatic transmission that encourages lazy,
thoughtless driving.

> --there doesn't seem to be any logical
> reason why a 2 (or 3) second minimum following distance shouldn't be the
> norm on surface streets as well as the highways and interstates.

CONGESTION. Get your following distance once you are through the
intersection, don't reduce the throughput. Otherwise one intersection
ends up backing up into the next. this is simple.

On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:38:50 -0700, Cartlon Shew >
wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:42:23 -0600,
>(Brent P) wrote:
>
>>In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>>Holy crap, they are actually teaching people this. This is worse than the online
>>>>traffic school that says each driver should wait 2 seconds after the car in front of
>>>>them starts moving once the light turns green. (2 seconds, car 1 goes, 2 seconds, car
>>>>2 goes, 2 seconds, car 3 goes.... and given most lights and sloth acceleration, it
>>>>will be red by car 3)
>>>
>>> Was the claimed reason to avoid getting speared by a red light runner
>>> if you are first in line at the light?
>>
>>For the first vehicle yes, for all the others, it was to have an immidate 2
>>second following distance.
>>
>
>
>It's probably the same logic that made them put a stop sign (not a
>light) on an entrace to I-17 that has been under construction off and
>on for over 2 years now. (They just can't seem to be satisfied each
>time they finish construction).
>
>In addition to the stop sign is another sign that says to wait 3
>seconds before proceeding. I presume that potholes torn into the
>pavement (that didn't exist before this latest round of construction)
>were placed there intentionally to act as speed bumps.

I think that 3-second wait is to spread the on-ramp traffic out, so a
solid slug of cars doesn't try to merge all at once.
During heavy traffic times, there's hardly room for one car to merge,
much less 7 or 8 all at once.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:18:43 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:

>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:38:50 -0700, Cartlon Shew >
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:42:23 -0600,
>>(Brent P) wrote:
>>
>>>In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>>> In article >,
>>>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>>>Holy crap, they are actually teaching people this. This is worse than the online
>>>>>traffic school that says each driver should wait 2 seconds after the car in front of
>>>>>them starts moving once the light turns green. (2 seconds, car 1 goes, 2 seconds, car
>>>>>2 goes, 2 seconds, car 3 goes.... and given most lights and sloth acceleration, it
>>>>>will be red by car 3)
>>>>
>>>> Was the claimed reason to avoid getting speared by a red light runner
>>>> if you are first in line at the light?
>>>
>>>For the first vehicle yes, for all the others, it was to have an immidate 2
>>>second following distance.
>>>
>>
>>
>>It's probably the same logic that made them put a stop sign (not a
>>light) on an entrace to I-17 that has been under construction off and
>>on for over 2 years now. (They just can't seem to be satisfied each
>>time they finish construction).
>>
>>In addition to the stop sign is another sign that says to wait 3
>>seconds before proceeding. I presume that potholes torn into the
>>pavement (that didn't exist before this latest round of construction)
>>were placed there intentionally to act as speed bumps.
>
>I think that 3-second wait is to spread the on-ramp traffic out, so a
>solid slug of cars doesn't try to merge all at once.
>During heavy traffic times, there's hardly room for one car to merge,
>much less 7 or 8 all at once.


Nonsense - During heavy traffic times, traffic is moving at about 20
mph.

But since this is a stop SIGN, everyone is expected to stop for a full
3 seconds even though there are only a few cars moving along at 70 mph
(in a 55 - or maybe 65, I don't exactly recall where the limit
changes)

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 08:35:21 -0700, Cartlon Shew >
wrote:

>On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 07:18:43 -0700, Big Bill > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:38:50 -0700, Cartlon Shew >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 16:42:23 -0600,
>>>(Brent P) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article >, Timothy J. Lee wrote:
>>>>> In article >,
>>>>> Brent P > wrote:
>>>>>>Holy crap, they are actually teaching people this. This is worse than the online
>>>>>>traffic school that says each driver should wait 2 seconds after the car in front of
>>>>>>them starts moving once the light turns green. (2 seconds, car 1 goes, 2 seconds, car
>>>>>>2 goes, 2 seconds, car 3 goes.... and given most lights and sloth acceleration, it
>>>>>>will be red by car 3)
>>>>>
>>>>> Was the claimed reason to avoid getting speared by a red light runner
>>>>> if you are first in line at the light?
>>>>
>>>>For the first vehicle yes, for all the others, it was to have an immidate 2
>>>>second following distance.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>It's probably the same logic that made them put a stop sign (not a
>>>light) on an entrace to I-17 that has been under construction off and
>>>on for over 2 years now. (They just can't seem to be satisfied each
>>>time they finish construction).
>>>
>>>In addition to the stop sign is another sign that says to wait 3
>>>seconds before proceeding. I presume that potholes torn into the
>>>pavement (that didn't exist before this latest round of construction)
>>>were placed there intentionally to act as speed bumps.
>>
>>I think that 3-second wait is to spread the on-ramp traffic out, so a
>>solid slug of cars doesn't try to merge all at once.
>>During heavy traffic times, there's hardly room for one car to merge,
>>much less 7 or 8 all at once.
>
>
>Nonsense - During heavy traffic times, traffic is moving at about 20
>mph.
>
>But since this is a stop SIGN, everyone is expected to stop for a full
>3 seconds even though there are only a few cars moving along at 70 mph
>(in a 55 - or maybe 65, I don't exactly recall where the limit
>changes)

The limit changes at Peoria, IIRC.
WHat I was speaking of is when thraffic is moving at 65-70, and
there's about 30 feet between cars, and many follow the line advised
here - don't let 'em in.
I've seen it, and it's not pretty.

--
Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Daniel W. Rouse Jr. wrote:

> Gradual acceleration also helps if someone doesn't want to actually remain
> stopped for 2 (or 3 seconds), such as not exceeding 2500 rpm in each gear
> (which is effortless in an automatic transmission) and not closing in
> rapidly on the rear bumper of the car in front.

The way I do it is to gradually increase following distance as the speed
increases. IOW, I match their acceleration when going less than 20 mph
and decrease my acceleration to establish following distance.

IMO, whoever suggested waiting 3 seconds before starting after the car
ahead of you has gone through the intersection is a moron.

> So, other than impatience and/or a stick-shift driver who simply doesn't
> want to have to downshift as much

You obviously don't drive a stickshift. Most drivers will upshift while
accelerating.