Post #3294239

2026-06-04 02:33 UTC

#1 is simply false. All merging is more effective at full speed. #2 demonstrates a lack of comprehension. With the right lane closed ahead, the slowed traffic in the left lane indicates the effects of the obstruction ahead, and informs drivers that they should exit. If the left lane isn’t backed up, the effects of the obstruction are not severe, and there is no need to exit. Allowing both lanes to back up introduces the worst delay, and doubles the number of vehicles needlessly exposed to that delay. #3 correctly identifies that the load is spread among more routes, but fails to comprehend that those other routes are normally underutilized and have considerable excess capacity available to ameliorate the problem. Diverting excess traffic to routes with excess capacity is a solution, not a problem. #4, stopped traffic is inevitable with zipper merging immediately before the obstruction. Anyone with more than a million miles of highway experience can corroborate that assertion.

Replies (2)

@WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 2026-06-04 04:56

I actually have that 1MM+ as a professional driver - you’re wrong, but too stubborn to admit it. I’m done. Gnite.

Open ##3294238
@WhoIzDisIz@lemmy.today 2026-06-04 14:03

To prevent further troll responses, I've got an unexpected few minutes so I'll try to reply. 1. Once again you're ignoring context. Zipper merging is **not significantly more effective** at reducing any sort of backup at full speed than other methods. You are essentially saying the same thing I did — whether you just weren't keeping the full context in mind, or you treated it separately just so you could be argumentative is something only you can say. 2. Once again, ignoring context. I was obviously referring to what those PAST the exit could do to help those behind them. The traffic is needlessly stopped by the inconsistent response to the merge - if both lanes kept going at a slightly reduced speed (mainly for safety) and spaced themselves appropriately in the leadup to the merge itself, then they could easily merge without stopping. Once again, you're seemingly basing your argument upon the concept of a **stoppage** — the very thing zipper merging is designed to avoid. 3. Wow, what a fucking assumption. Even if those other routes were **that** underutilized (exceedingly unlikely), they won't be for long with the amount of traffic you'd quickly fill them with. They would likely be "underutilized" for a reason, or people would be using them - especially the locals would would actually benefit the most from taking that exit and who likely would already be doing so if it were normally more beneficial. 4. It's "inevitable" mainly because of the inconsistent response of those involved. Once the motoring public at large understands the method and utilizes it, the only way it _doesn't_ minimize the likelihood of a stoppage is if the roadway is at full capacity already - not impossible, but it'd be bad planning by traffic control to have required that merge at times when that would be the case, which is a different problem entirely. Now, with this troll-induced (not you) response complete, I'm done with this.

Open ##3307859