If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
In article >, Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 00:03:31 -0600, > (Brent P) wrote: > >>While never at an intersection where it delayed others, I have turned >>right on to a side street then made a u-turn or otherwise found a place >>to turn around then go straight because left-turn-on-arrow-only lights or >>traffic conditions. > > Aren't U-turns illegal in IL? U turns are perfectly LEGAL in IL unless there is a sign indicating they aren't allowed at that particular location. |
Ads |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message ... > In article >, > Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote: >>> >>>"It might be OK for him, but it's going to be worse for everyone else," >>>Barrett said." >> >>VINDICATED!!!!! > > Not. You just found another crackpot who misses the point. > > In either situation, the flow is the same. The flow is measured > at the output, not the input. It doesn't matter how you re-arrange > cars in the backup, you get the same flow on the far side of the choke > point. What about time spent in the backup? The output may stay the same, but if you get in the correct lane, and prepare for the exit, and ten cars pull in late, at the end of the lane, you are effectively pushed back ten spots. Plus you have the waves of braking and slowing due to people getting cut off/letting them in. I have had this particular merge in my commute, and this is a definite good thing. If you read the article you will see that people are applauding as they drive by. That is because these people are MFFY types who are costing everyone else time. Bernard |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
In article <nC9Vd.16996$QQ3.1362@trnddc02>,
Bernard farquart > wrote: > >"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message ... >> In article >, >> Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote: >>>> >>>>"It might be OK for him, but it's going to be worse for everyone else," >>>>Barrett said." >>> >>>VINDICATED!!!!! >> >> Not. You just found another crackpot who misses the point. >> >> In either situation, the flow is the same. The flow is measured >> at the output, not the input. It doesn't matter how you re-arrange >> cars in the backup, you get the same flow on the far side of the choke >> point. > >What about time spent in the backup? > >The output may stay the same, but if you get in the >correct lane, and prepare for the exit, and ten cars >pull in late, at the end of the lane, you are effectively >pushed back ten spots. Yes. So don't be a chump. Form two lines. Then you'll have half the backup length and the same flow, and it will be impossible to pull in late. (not in the situation Scott's article had, though -- that was one where the two lanes ran parallel but went different directions, and people were cutting from one to the other after the division point. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"Matthew Russotto" > wrote in message news >>The output may stay the same, but if you get in the >>correct lane, and prepare for the exit, and ten cars >>pull in late, at the end of the lane, you are effectively >>pushed back ten spots. > > Yes. So don't be a chump. Form two lines. Then you'll have half the > backup length and the same flow, and it will be impossible to pull in > late. Then you are the one cutting into the exit lane at the last moment, and you are the asshole.There are not TWO equally valid lanes in this instance, there is a through lane, and an exit lane, the right lane is for traffic going on to Columbia ave. the left lane is for traffic getting on the freeway. > > (not in the situation Scott's article had, though -- that was one > where the two lanes ran parallel but went different directions, and > people were cutting from one to the other after the division point. that is my point, I said I had driven *that* intersection. Bernard |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Scott en Aztlán <newsgroup> wrote: >On Wed, 02 Mar 2005 12:38:24 -0600, >(Matthew Russotto) wrote: > >>(not in the situation Scott's article had, though -- that was one >>where the two lanes ran parallel but went different directions, and >>people were cutting from one to the other after the division point. > >So even a confirmed ZIPPER such as yourself realizes that merging in >early is the only correct action in the circumstances described in the >article. Of course; it's you who is trying to expand that particular situation to take in the situations where the zipper IS appropriate. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
> >So even a confirmed ZIPPER such as yourself realizes that merging in
> >early is the only correct action in the circumstances described in the > >article. > > Of course; it's you who is trying to expand that particular > situation to take in the situations where the zipper IS appropriate. > -- That would be in situations captioned "professional drivers on closed course" -Dave |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Dave C. wrote:
>>>So even a confirmed ZIPPER such as yourself realizes that merging in >>>early is the only correct action in the circumstances described in the >>>article. >> >>Of course; it's you who is trying to expand that particular >>situation to take in the situations where the zipper IS appropriate. >>-- > > > That would be in situations captioned "professional drivers on closed > course" -Dave > Not these moronic discussions again. Any time there's a lane closure or a lane ending, the "zipper" is the right thing to do. Period. nate -- replace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
> Any time there's a lane closure or a lane ending, the "zipper" is the
> right thing to do. Period. I agree. The principle that applies in both cases is "wait your turn and don't enable those who won't." |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
In article t>,
Dave C. > wrote: >> >So even a confirmed ZIPPER such as yourself realizes that merging in >> >early is the only correct action in the circumstances described in the >> >article. >> >> Of course; it's you who is trying to expand that particular >> situation to take in the situations where the zipper IS appropriate. >> -- > >That would be in situations captioned "professional drivers on closed >course" -Dave Hardly. That would be in situations, for example, where two lanes which go the same direction are reduced to one. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
> >>
> >> Of course; it's you who is trying to expand that particular > >> situation to take in the situations where the zipper IS appropriate. > >> -- > > > >That would be in situations captioned "professional drivers on closed > >course" -Dave > > Hardly. That would be in situations, for example, where two lanes > which go the same direction are reduced to one. > Y'know, the problem with the zipper method . . . probably most of the readers of this ng could handle it OK, at speed. But if hundreds of average drivers try it, it's likely that many of them are going to bend metal. So it is NOT OK to say, since I can handle the zipper just fine, MFFY. Get in line and wait your turn, or admit that you are an asshole and don't apologize for being an asshole. -Dave |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NSR and the outside line | Larry | Simulators | 0 | February 21st 05 12:43 AM |
Oil Pressure Line | JD | Ford Mustang | 4 | January 15th 05 11:02 PM |
Fuel line 1978 Vette: | Process45 | Corvette | 0 | October 24th 04 05:37 PM |
'96 Caravan, power steering line leak | Snydley | Dodge | 0 | September 17th 04 02:53 AM |