Line Cutting

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.

"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

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.

"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

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.

> >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

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

> 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."

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.

> >>
> >> 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