This is in response to this past weekends letters in the Star Wheels Section.
Specifically, to this letter by John Mason:
On many two-lane highways the road expands to permit passing. The problem is at the end when there is a merge back to two lanes. Who should allow the other vehicle in?
In Newfoundland, we are left in no doubt. The left lane has the words YIELD painted on it.
In other areas, drivers are left in doubt. In Ontario, the dotted line continues to the shoulder.
So the choice for a driver who has moved right to allow passing is to push sideways, or slow down, or stop, or to stay in the lane, be forced onto the shoulder and eventually into the rhubarb. And this does happen.
It makes sense to me that the vehicle that has moved over to permit a faster vehicle to pass should have right of way. The passing vehicle — the vehicle that is probably over the speed limit — should be responsible to care for the vehicle overtaken. Newfoundland has it right!
John Mason, Nobel
I think John, or maybe myself, misunderstands the reason for the widening of smaller highways to allow for passing. Maybe we can hash this out here.
Markham road north of the city is a good example of this. For the most part, the road is a 2 lane highway but around many intersections with traffic lights, it opens up to 4 lanes to allow for passing. John implies that slower traffic should move to the right and allow faster traffic to pass but I believe the opposite. I believe the road opens to allow through traffic to pass slower drivers and, more importantly, those who are waiting at the intersection to make a left turn where no left-turn lane is provided.
While slower drivers simply continue in the lane they’re in, faster traffic is provided this opportunity to pass them in the temporary right hand lane. While this may contravene the practice used on expressways, I don’t believe that “left lane hogging” logic applies since the right lane is short and temporary. It can’t be expected that slower traffic would pull into it.
With this in mind, I believe it is the responsibility of those in the right lane, which is ending, to safely merge to the left. Since it’s their lane that’s ending, and not that of the drivers in the left lane, it’s up to them to find a suitable spot to merge safely. Those in the left lane are not changing lanes. Their lane continues. Those in the right are changing lanes and have a responsibility to do so properly.
They should act exactly as they would on an expressway onramp. If they make it to the point where the dotted line ends their lane, then they’ve failed to merge properly and it’s their own fault that they now have to wait for an opening in traffic to pull in safely.
People in this province seem to have no clue when it comes to proper merging. I believe that as soon as you know that your lane is ending, you should be looking for a space to merge and matching speed with the traffic you’re trying to merge into. Anyone that gets to the end of their merging lane without doing so has given up their right to courtesy from the lane they’re trying to join.
While I am happy to allow merging traffic to pull in front of me, I don’t allow it at the end of their lane. At that point, they’ve already failed as drivers and for all I care they can drive themselves into the wall if they don’t feel like stopping and waiting for an opening.
Whether it’s their lack of driving know-how or their selfish attempts to get just a few car-lengths ahead in the other lane, they’ve wasted their space to manoeuvre. Now they’re on their own to deal with the consequences.
In all my years of driving, it’s a rare occurrence that I’ve found myself in that predicament through no fault of my own and I refuse to accept that I am simply the luckiest merger alive.
While I disagree that short lanes around intersection should be used for passing, your opinion on merging from those lanes is correct. In the case of free-way on-ramps, however, you don't seem to consider that in some circumstances, merging lanes are too short, and some cars have difficulty getting up to speed in the right-most lane – especially if the speed of traffic is above the speed limit to begin with. On top of that, proper technique (besides matching traffic speed) is NOT to merge as soon as the solid line becomes broken, giving people already in that lane a chance to notice you. Those people already in the lane should also move over, if safe to do so, to give merging cars room.
That being said, I believe Mr. Mason is referring to is when a highway opens up a second lane for the express purposes of allowing safe passing (on-coming traffic is still limited to one lane) – a passing zone, or climbing lane. There are absolutely no intersections involved, and they even have their own road sign. All slower vehicles (including trucks) should take the right lane, while faster vehicles pass. If you haven't seen this … you need to drive on more two-lane highways. If you didn't know this existed, then you didn't read the Ontario Driver's handbook. Tsk tsk. 🙂
In this case, I believe the right lane should have the right-of-way to merge back in, because they had the courtesy of using the right lane to begin with (the "do-nothing" case automatically leaves you in the left lane). There are plenty of signs (up to 2km before the extra lane appears, and finally 300m before it disappears) that both lanes can see, so the those who want to speed (or go faster than the guy who is too slow) can prepare to pass. The length of these passing zones is quite long, so someone who can't finish passing in that time-span deserves to sit behind the slow traffic until the next passing zone.
Now that doesn't relieve the slower traffic from signalling the lane change well before the lane ends. But the fast traffic should let them in, and wait for the next opportunity.
I 100% second Austin's opinion. Like, every word of it. I was even going to throw in some comment about how nobody signals any more, and how this is essential to merging effectively, then saw that he included that at the end of his comment. So I guess what I'm saying is, "Word."
Another voice of the same view as Austin.
In fact, many times in situations as the one Mr Mason describes, there's even a sign that says "Pull right except to pass" (or words to that effect, It's been a while since we've been up North and my memory's a bit fuzzy)… which says very clearly that the right lane is still the main lane and that the left lane is strictly for passing. Therefore, if you haven't managed to pass in the space provided, you need to calm down and wait for the next safe opportunity whether that's another passing lane, or a broken yellow line.
As for on-ramps. While I agree that people who try to merge onto the 401 while travelling at 40 km/h are tremendously frustrating to those behind them and technically guilty of dangerous driving, reaching the end of the feeder lane before managing to merge is often a design flaw, rather than driver error (not always… not even almost always… but still often). A tight spiral or sharp turn on-ramp leading to a feeder lane of aproximately 4 car lengths (once past the solid line) is just plain bad design. With the high proportion of automatic transmission vehicles (without VTEC or other similar "On-demand overdrive" technology), which often don't have the same versitility of transmission shifts (my car does great from a standing start, but from 50 km/h it's reluctant to quickly get me to 120… true, not the best example, since we've established I drive a citrus fruit, but still), it's unreasonable to expect that such a distance would be sufficient to accelerate to highway speeds from the necessary slow speeds of some ramps (not everyone has modified their cars to be able to "safely" take tighter corners at 60+ 😉 ).
Just my thoughts *shrug*
I stand corrected as the lanes I was envisioning for this scenario (namely, those that appear briefly around signalled intersections) don't seem to be the ones that were being addressed.
As for the merge lanes though… I find that the situations in which people end up trying to force themselves in at the end of the lane happen more often when traffic is NOT moving quickly rather than when it is.
when traffic is flowing, as soon as you can see the traffic after coming up the hill or around the bend or whatever, you should be picking the spot you're going to merge into. Then you can speed up or slow down accordingly to fit in where you'd like, which should be nowhere close to the end of the lane.
Sure, if you've got some asshole beside you who is not letting you in where you've chosen, then that can be a problem but you should then slow a little to get behind them if possible. It's unfortunate that people do that, but most drivers are idiots so it's to be expected. If you've chosen your spot appropriately, you should have room to fall back a little if you need to.
Use of the turn signal should be a no-brainer. As soon as you're in the merge lane you should be signalling and attempting to move. You should not be attempting to pass anyone unless there is a clear opening you are moving toward and you have the ability to get there safely before the lane ends.
My big beef is those who pull to the end of the lane, passing a half dozen cars in the process, and then slow everyone down by forcing their way in at the front. If traffic is stopped… then you should also be stopped well before the end of the lane with your signal on and working your way courteously into the next lane.
As for the cars who can't get up to highway speed in a merge lane… I suppose this would be a good time to point out [url=http://www.notweasel.com/index.php?entry=entry060918-094528]my entry from September 18th[/url] where I comment on how a faster car is a safer car. For all the nay-sayers out there, this is just one more aspect where having power on reserve can make you a safer driver.
Ho ho ho! This is getting interesting. I agree with Kevin for those who do wait until the last minute to merge in a long merging lane. These people are just trying to butt-in, rather than merging at the first available safe opportunity. These are the same sort of people who drive on the shoulder, or refuse to wait in the proper line to get onto the 401 from the 404 (heading South), or ride their motorcycle between lanes.
I didn't make a comment on the fast cars entry earlier, I thought most of what I wanted to say was said. There is a difference between a fast car (top speed) and a car that is able to accelerate, which is a combination of engine and transmission. I always drive low-end cars (owned or rental), and I've never had a problem, even with the uber-short on-ramps of California (in a Geo Metro, no less, with strong-arm steering). If you put the pedal all the way down, the automatic transmission is supposed to use the lower gears longer to aid acceleration. My '91 Honda Civic (mm… 92 HP) has a dead acceleration zone around 60 kph, especially going up-hill. If I need to accelerate faster, I can simply force my transmission to downshift by using the D3 or 2 gears. The 2 gear is good up to ~90 kph.
I would argue that I could make any given car as safe, or safer, as any given fast car, by simply porting over the advanced engineering (steering, suspension, brakes, etc.), but still leaving the stock engine in there. Sticklers can slap on a "Type R" sticker for an extra 5 HP. 🙂
I contend that the extra power to accelerate is one of those engineering features that should be ported over.
Consider being stuck in the passing lane with no shoulder and an 18 wheeler on your right with open road in front of you. Some dimwit is coming up behind you talking on his cell phone and looking for something in the briefcase next to him doing, 30 km/h or so faster than you are. You see him approaching and see his head pointed somewhere other than toward you and realize he's not going to slow down. What do you do?
You could be in this same situation stopped at a light with no through traffic, realizing the guy coming up behind you isn't going to stop.
Being able to accelerate at will is simply one more tool in your arsenal of safety features.
But I digress. I keep making those arguments and people keep debunking them on the basis that idiots in fast cars are dangerous. Apparently no consideration is made for non-idiots using fast cars responsibly.
I think I mentioned in your Sept. 18th entry… that yes, a fast car CAN be a safer car… but unfortunately, due to idiots (both idiot drivers and people who do idiot mods) and a surfeit of, shall we say 'inappropriate' cars, you can't just make the blanket statment that faster cars are safer cars. Generalizations so often don't stand up to scrutiny.
I agree… the people who deliberately drive to the end of a long merge lane before trying to merge are bad. They're evil, vile creatures and should not be granted any concession, unless your life happens to be endangered by not granting it (I mean, if I'm driving a Metro and he's driving a Yukon/H2/other insanely huge vehicle that's obviously compensating for something, well… it's not usually a good idea to pick a fight with someone bigger than you… if I'm driving a Focus and he's driving a Sentra, that's a different story). I have this beef with people who can see the signs flashing that a lane is closed just as well as I can (sometimes better because they're sitting at my roof level), yet seem incapable of getting out of the lane that's buggered. Funny, I managed it… why can't they?
But… the suggestion that if you plan ahead you should have room to slow down to merge? I've got issues with that. I've been behind people who plan, but plan poorly… have to slow down to merge, and in the process bugger up my planned entry to the highway. Yes, if I put the pedal to the floor, my car will figure out that I want more power and will fiddle around with downshifts to get me there… but usually there's at least one 'false start' involved (I think I mentioned I drive a citrus fruit… would that I could afford to replace it… when it comes down to it, it's not endangering my life or the lives of those around me most times, so I'll deal)… plus there's no guarantee, regardless of my careful planning, that I'll be able to merge before the end of the feeder lane and NOT end up in someone's back seat because he slowed down too far to make his merge and there's someone doing double his current speed in the next lane stopping me from getting there to get around him.
A little courtesy would go a long, long way in a lot of situations… too bad self-importance and 'road-rage' and the like are so prevalent that they seem to have nearly eradicated the notion of courtesy on the roads. *shrug*
Well, I have to disagree with your claim that a faster engine needs to be ported over. Why? I'm not saying there are no situations where engine power can help you avoid an accident, but rather for every situation where you might have a positive effect from the engine, I can list two or three where it a detriment. On top of that, for each situation you give, I can tell you where the car needs to be engineered better to alleviate the need for the faster engine.
For example, in the situation where you have an inattentive driver bearing down on your rear at a 30 kph delta, and you have nowhere to go. Unless you're already at your car's limit (in which case you're going way too fast to begin with), you do have a chance to accelerate, however slowly. But let's take worst case: the other car rear-ends you. With a 30 kph delta, that should really be well-designed bumper territory. If you want to avoid the collision altogether, the other car should be outfitted with radar/lidar technology, fore-warning the driver that he or she is going to hit someone.
In the case of the intersection, I really think that you can get away with the acceleration of a stock engine. The lidar/radar system above works as well. Or the horn. Besides which, odd are pretty good you're not even going to notice until it's too late, regardless of your engine, which is why Young Drivers teaches you to leave a car length in front of you when stopped at an intersection, until another car somes to a full and complete stop behind you – to prevent your car from being pushed into cross-traffic. (I haven't gone to that particular driving school, in case you're wondering.)
I think the single most important thing, when it comes to engine, is not that a faster engine will be more safe. It's sizing the engine properly to the car, such that you get enough performance out of it. Again, my Civic is 92 HP, which I'm sure makes you cringe. My unloaded car can go up to 160 kph on a long-stretch of the 401. Downhill. With tail-wind. I have no trouble maintaining 140 kph (though I've never tried for any sustained period). But I sure can get it to accelerate quickly if I want or need it to. What is a more powerful engine going to buy me? Absolutely nothing. In fact, it will probably make my car heavier, and anytime I try to call on that power, I'll just spin the wheels. Having a weaker engine doesn't mean you can't accelerate, it just means you can get 0-60kph in some ridiculously short time. I can't even think of a situation where that much accelerate is the only way to avoid getting into an accident, or the only way to save your life. You get significant better bang for the buck with other engineering safety features.
Anyway, the short of it is that there are too many cases where the faster engine will cause accidents than where it will help avoid accidents or mitigate injury. The engine itself is not at fault. But I could say the same thing about guns: guns don't kill people, people kill people. But that doesn't keep up from regulating them to try and minimize misuse.
I'm sure you'll accept the futility of expecting every car on the road to have a radar collision avoidance system in it. There's no point in arguing for better technology all around as this is something we have no control over. This is technology that won't exist in most cars for at least 10 to 20 years. It's available now on the higher end cars, but most cars aren't higher end cars.
As for more power only affording you the ability to spin tires, you've be hard-pressed to try and spin the tires in your civic from 40 km/h even with well over double the power you have. The idea goes completely out the window when you consider that just about all high performance cars on the market these days have traction control systems to prevent this from happening at all, regardless of how much power they've got.
The fact that your car can do 160 km/h or maintain 140 km/h does not mean that it has more than enough power. I call shenanigans on your suggestion that you can make it accelerate quickly if you want it to. Time spent in the blind spot of an 18 wheeler while passing it can be much better spent safely in front of it. Having the ability to accelerate from 100 km/h up to 120 km/h to go around one on the highway quicker means you spend less time in that blind spot and are back in a safer spot much quicker. If both you and another car both move over to pass… begin to accelerate past it… and he decides to do a lane change into you… slamming on the brakes with that other car right behind you may not be the safest plan of action. If you don't have the alternate ability to accelerate past the truck quickly… which you don't in a 98 hp Civic… then I believe the lack of power is compromising your safety.
Sure, you can provide examples where the extra power can get you in trouble… but I'll bet most of those examples will involve reckless behaviour. I implore you to come up with an example where the driver does not have the option of not using that power.
For a competant driver, having the ability to do what he chooses is the best action for a given scenario is safer than having the car limit those choices, potentially eliminating the safest one.
Incidentally… since you mention the use of widespread technology to make the roads safer, studies have shown that if most cars had and used adaptive cruise control, traffic flow would increase and accident rates would decrease. See my [url=http://www.notweasel.com/index.php?entry=entry060921-133127]post from September 21[/url] for my frustrations on trying to do my part to make this scenario a reality.
It sounds to me like Austin's arguing for knowing the limits of your car and acting within them, rather than expecting the car to be responsive enough to accomodate for one's own — or others' — lack of responsibility while driving. The fact is that being on the road at all is a potential mortal-danger as there will always be people endangering other people's lives. The goal is to not be one of those people, and be reasonably prepared for them. For some people, that means having a car that can accelerate quickly, and for others, it's a largely unnecessary feature.