Reasonable vs "Crash Out"

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Side note, when I was early twenties, I would block people from merging into my lane. I'd tailgate the guy in front of me, if I saw a motorcyclist coming by, I'd start 'wavering' between the lines so he couldn't zoom by. If I saw someone in my rearview switchign lanes to get ahead, I'd match speeds with the car against me.

One time I was doing that and flipped the bird at the car as they eventually got passed me. They spent the next half mile slowing down/speeding up and swerving in an active attempt to crash into me. I eventually got them ahead and veered into an exit, blew a red and got away from them. Now I just let driver's do what they want and accept arriving a few minutes later than planned.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

Out of curiosity, I decided to do a search by car insurance rates - I figured car insurance would be the least biased since they're focus is just statistically making sure they make money. Tennessee was in the 30s, meaning at least 29 other states were worse, and nashville was not the worst city within the state listed. That was memphis.

 

[Hot Lunch]

The one lane is empty because a bunch of dudes who don’t know how to zipper merge actively create a dangerous situation for those who do. This is an example of people literally creating a problem for themselves and others, and then getting salty about it. It’s just bad driving.

Don’t take my word for it. Do some reading. The studies are out there. Zipper merging is safer for everyone, including the construction workers, and it’s more efficient because all available lanes are being used.

Let's bring exits into the discussion.

If a particular exit is backed up and only has one lane going into the off ramp, you'll have people driving in the right line (which is not part of the exit - it's meant for drivers who are continuing forward) just to cross a solid white line and cut in at the off ramp.

Does the need to zipper merge apply here too?

 

[Hot Lunch]

Side note, when I was early twenties, I would block people from merging into my lane. I'd tailgate the guy in front of me, if I saw a motorcyclist coming by, I'd start 'wavering' between the lines so he couldn't zoom by. If I saw someone in my rearview switchign lanes to get ahead, I'd match speeds with the car against me.

One time I was doing that and flipped the bird at the car as they eventually got passed me. They spent the next half mile slowing down/speeding up and swerving in an active attempt to crash into me. I eventually got them ahead and veered into an exit, blew a red and got away from them. Now I just let driver's do what they want and accept arriving a few minutes later than planned.

Those bastards with their little rice burners zig-zagging through traffic? Yeah, if I see one coming in the rearview, I'll get in the right lane (not the left, but the right) and I'll catch up with someone on the left to match their speed. Just to stop the zig-zagger from zig-zagging. It's only illegal if you do that in the left lane.

 

[HighKick]

If you look on any cities nextdoor/subreddit/facebook groups, you'll see that claim made. As you've pointed out in different threads, anyone can make statistics say what they want it to say. Based on personal experience, Nashville doesn't hit the top 10. Las Vegas and DC are the absolute worst. Las vegas is full of people who all have different cultures for driving so you never know what anyone's going to do, it's crowded, and if a study was done on the most DUI's I'd expect it comes in the top 5. DC is just horrible - it's literally the only reason I don't live there.

NYC, Boston, Baltimore, Jersey City, San Francisco, Miami, Orlando, and LA are the worst after those two in terms of drivers, though personally I find that it's better than some others since I expect them to be bad. Raleigh, Seattle, Newark, and Atlanta come in the next tier, where not everyone's an aggressive driver, but this means that you can't just assume everyone's aggressive, and in some ways that makes it worse. Nashville, Portland, and Williamsburg follow those up.

I'd bet some of texas should be on that list, but I haven't made my way to texas yet. New Orleans should also be on there, but that's because of the drunk pedestrians, not the drives, so I'm leaving it off. I'm noticing that most of the cities I've listed are coastal cities, but I've been to a decent number of "flyover" states, and they really don't compare. I've also never been to chicago or denver, which should probably be listed here somewhere.


All that said, there are definitely times where waiting 'in line' means you're waiting an extra half hour. These are very specific exits/ramps/turns, where you know that's the case in advance if you know the area. Outside of those, you're really only losing 5 minutes max following general traffic patterns and not being aggressive.

I did qualify my first comment about Nashville, and followed up to say it is ranked 12th in congested traffic.

One of the more frustrating areas I traveled a lot was around Toronto. Until I learned there is essentially two interstate systems running side by side, and you better get off the speedway at the right time or you would be making a 30-minute to 1-hour backtrack, it was daunting. And Yes, the was before GPS was commonplace.
I have been to LA twice for work. Why a person wants to live in that environment and that much traffic escapes me. Hands down the dirtiest, seediest, and rudest place I ever worked. So much so I broke ties with a very good customer (as amicably as I could) because I refuse to go back to LA.
Atlanta has definitely gotten worse in the last decade. Forget traveling east or west out of Atlanta at rush hour or on a Friday.
San Antonio isn't dreadful, just a lot of volume.
I think if you ever drive Chicago, it will move up on your list.
I have never had any issue in Raleigh.
We have Ubered around Denver, but I don't remember any major issues. Definitely some volume.
Orlando is bad around the theme parks and seasonally. Other than that, it is not bad at all. We fly in and go diving 4-6 times/year.
I don't think I can speak to the other areas beyond an overnight trip or two where I would taxi around.

 

[HighKick]

My man. It’s called a zipper merge and it’s actually the law in many places. And when people aren’t selfish about it, it actually helps reduce congestion. Those rude knuckleheads are actually the ones doing it right.

I know I’ll never be able to convince you, but I encourage you to do some reading up on aggressive driving and impact studies on its impact on congestion.


Fair enough.

I am former LEO and very familiar with the term zipper merge. A proper zipper merge begins at the START of the merge area at the first notification, not at the end when a person has no more road to travel, and is forced to merge, backing up the flow. So, Yes, those knuckleheads are actually breaking the law and being an outright d**k.. And not to mention how bit of a d**k they are being to the construction workers.

 

[HighKick]

Wow. Shooting an unarmed teenager in the back of the head for fleeing a simple burglary?! That is, in my opinion, extremely wrong and over the top unnecessary violence. Over 10 bucks and a broken window…

Simple burglary? There is no such thing when a weapon is involved.
You made an Extreme jump there, for all we know that fleeing felon (not misdemeanor) had also just shot someone ( or was on their way to do so).

You are cherry picking just like the media does trying to create a narrative. Not disclosing the full story, just a part to try to make a (usually incorrect) point.

Steve asked for an example of due process in context, I gave him the statute and amendment. No more fuller disclosure that that. But it requires the due diligence to read and Interpret the whole thing, not cherry pick it.

 

[Steve]

Side note, when I was early twenties, I would block people from merging into my lane. I'd tailgate the guy in front of me, if I saw a motorcyclist coming by, I'd start 'wavering' between the lines so he couldn't zoom by. If I saw someone in my rearview switchign lanes to get ahead, I'd match speeds with the car against me.

One time I was doing that and flipped the bird at the car as they eventually got passed me. They spent the next half mile slowing down/speeding up and swerving in an active attempt to crash into me. I eventually got them ahead and veered into an exit, blew a red and got away from them. Now I just let driver's do what they want and accept arriving a few minutes later than planned.

Kind of seems like you were looking for a fight back then and found one. I'm glad you were able to lose that guy, but there are plenty of dashcam videos around the internet of situations just like this that end in an accident.

Let's bring exits into the discussion.

If a particular exit is backed up and only has one lane going into the off ramp, you'll have people driving in the right line (which is not part of the exit - it's meant for drivers who are continuing forward) just to cross a solid white line and cut in at the off ramp.

Does the need to zipper merge apply here too?

I'm not quite sure what you're describing. I hit a couple of exits every day. One is the off ramp onto JDearborn/James/Madison going north. The right lane becomes the left exit lane, and another lane joins the freeway and that lane becomes exit only, which splits off just after the exit.

I hope that makes sense. It's a goat screw, and that right lane (that becomes the left exit lane) is the one I need to be in, and it definitely backs up. There are three basic ways to approach that exit. All of this is over a length of just about 1 mile.

1. I can stay one more lane over to the left and then try to cut in at the last minute (those are the drivers that really seem to get under your skin).
2. I can stay in that left exit lane that gets backed up... and literally see folks jumping in down the road in front of me.
3. Or when the new right hand lane opens up that is exit only, I can jump over there and skip down the line, hoping someone will let me back into the left exit lane so that I don't end up down on Rainier Ave.

I've tried all three over the years. Number 1 is the most difficult because people don't want to let you in. I get it. Option 3 isn't too bad, because they are both exit lanes, but it's basically the same as number 1, just coming from the other direction.

Here's the thing. If you and I agree that Option 2 is the "right" way to approach the interchange, what's the practical difference between you and me? I'm going to get there at the same time you do. I'm just going choosing not to get hung up about it, and give the other drivers the benefit of the doubt. We both have baked in assumptions about the other drivers. You presume they're dicks. I choose to presume they're confused boomers who aren't familiar with the area. I will always let them in. No skin off my nose.

And in the end, I get to work at exactly the same time you would. I'm just not ending my drive angry, and I'm not inviting a road rage incident like the one that Monkey Turned Wolf described above. Not the most important thing, but relevant... staying in that slowest lane never costs me more than about 5 minutes. While that seems like a VERY long time sitting in the car watching cars cut in ahead of me, it's literally a maximum of about 5 minutes. I am just not in that much of a hurry most days.

At the end of the day, there's an onramp I take onto I5 South where two lanes zipper merge into one before merging onto the freeway. It's a perfect example of how well things go when folks zipper merge. The lanes always back up a bit, but both lanes move at the same pace and because everyone uses all available lanes, merging only at the end when the two lanes actually combine, no one gets upset. It's fair, safe, and efficient.

Those bastards with their little rice burners zig-zagging through traffic? Yeah, if I see one coming in the rearview, I'll get in the right lane (not the left, but the right) and I'll catch up with someone on the left to match their speed. Just to stop the zig-zagger from zig-zagging. It's only illegal if you do that in the left lane.

I am former LEO and very familiar with the term zipper merge. A proper zipper merge begins at the START of the merge area at the first notification, not at the end when a person has no more road to travel, and is forced to merge, backing up the flow. So, Yes, those knuckleheads are actually breaking the law and being an outright d**k.. And not to mention how bit of a d**k they are being to the construction workers.

That's just factually incorrect. Here's a video that goes through the entire thing. I can point to some studies if you like that talk about how a proper zipper merge is considered safer for construction workers, too, if you like.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Simple burglary? There is no such thing when a weapon is involved.
You made an Extreme jump there, for all we know that fleeing felon (not misdemeanor) had also just shot someone ( or was on their way to do so).

You are cherry picking just like the media does trying to create a narrative. Not disclosing the full story, just a part to try to make a (usually incorrect) point.

Steve asked for an example of due process in context, I gave him the statute and amendment. No more fuller disclosure that that. But it requires the due diligence to read and Interpret the whole thing, not cherry pick it.

That’s not the story I read. It said he was a teenager, unarmed, who had stolen a purse and 10 dollars. He was shot in the back of his head while climbing a fence to escape arrest. You really think that he deserved to die like that for a burglary? Now I’m not defending his crime, and if he broke while the homeowner was there and they shot him then that’s on the burglar. But for a police officer to shoot a nonviolent unarmed teenager in the back of the head while they are fleeing and unarmed is wrong. Take it However you like, it’s wrong.

 

[Hot Lunch]

I'm not quite sure what you're describing. I hit a couple of exits every day. One is the off ramp onto JDearborn/James/Madison going north. The right lane becomes the left exit lane, and another lane joins the freeway and that lane becomes exit only, which splits off just after the exit.

I hope that makes sense. It's a goat screw, and that right lane (that becomes the left exit lane) is the one I need to be in, and it definitely backs up. There are three basic ways to approach that exit. All of this is over a length of just about 1 mile.

1. I can stay one more lane over to the left and then try to cut in at the last minute (those are the drivers that really seem to get under your skin).
2. I can stay in that left exit lane that gets backed up... and literally see folks jumping in down the road in front of me.
3. Or when the new right hand lane opens up that is exit only, I can jump over there and skip down the line, hoping someone will let me back into the left exit lane so that I don't end up down on Rainier Ave.

I've tried all three over the years. Number 1 is the most difficult because people don't want to let you in. I get it. Option 3 isn't too bad, because they are both exit lanes, but it's basically the same as number 1, just coming from the other direction.

Here's the thing. If you and I agree that Option 2 is the "right" way to approach the interchange, what's the practical difference between you and me? I'm going to get there at the same time you do. I'm just going choosing not to get hung up about it, and give the other drivers the benefit of the doubt. We both have baked in assumptions about the other drivers. You presume they're dicks. I choose to presume they're confused boomers who aren't familiar with the area. I will always let them in. No skin off my nose.

And in the end, I get to work at exactly the same time you would. I'm just not ending my drive angry, and I'm not inviting a road rage incident like the one that Monkey Turned Wolf described above. Not the most important thing, but relevant... staying in that slowest lane never costs me more than about 5 minutes. While that seems like a VERY long time sitting in the car watching cars cut in ahead of me, it's literally a maximum of about 5 minutes. I am just not in that much of a hurry most days.

At the end of the day, there's an onramp I take onto I5 South where two lanes zipper merge into one before merging onto the freeway. It's a perfect example of how well things go when folks zipper merge. The lanes always back up a bit, but both lanes move at the same pace and because everyone uses all available lanes, merging only at the end when the two lanes actually combine, no one gets upset. It's fair, safe, and efficient.

It seems that you understand, but just to be sure:

We were previously talking about a lane closure in which drivers in one lane cannot continue in that lane, and must merge. I may not think it's fair that someone continue in the closed lane to the end if it's not as equally occupied as the open lane, but I do have to concede that the zipper merge is supposed to happen.

Where the disagreement comes is in the case of a backed up exit. We'll use the chart below:

The red X is the guy I'm talking about. Because of the lane he's in, he's supposed to continue forward (the green arrow). However, the exit lane is backed up, and he drove to the front of it to cut in.

There's is no obligation to "zipper merge" or let this guy in. He needs to get off at the next exit (the right way) and take the back streets to his destination. This guy is about to hold up the traffic behind him trying to cut in.

And who does this guy think he is? Is he too good to wait like everyone else? Is better than everyone else? Screw him.

 

[Monkey Turned Wolf]

I did qualify my first comment about Nashville, and followed up to say it is ranked 12th in congested traffic.

One of the more frustrating areas I traveled a lot was around Toronto. Until I learned there is essentially two interstate systems running side by side, and you better get off the speedway at the right time or you would be making a 30-minute to 1-hour backtrack, it was daunting. And Yes, the was before GPS was commonplace.
I have been to LA twice for work. Why a person wants to live in that environment and that much traffic escapes me. Hands down the dirtiest, seediest, and rudest place I ever worked. So much so I broke ties with a very good customer (as amicably as I could) because I refuse to go back to LA.
Atlanta has definitely gotten worse in the last decade. Forget traveling east or west out of Atlanta at rush hour or on a Friday.
San Antonio isn't dreadful, just a lot of volume.
I think if you ever drive Chicago, it will move up on your list.
I have never had any issue in Raleigh.
We have Ubered around Denver, but I don't remember any major issues. Definitely some volume.
Orlando is bad around the theme parks and seasonally. Other than that, it is not bad at all. We fly in and go diving 4-6 times/year.
I don't think I can speak to the other areas beyond an overnight trip or two where I would taxi around.

agree with most of those. Raleigh is an issue only in that you've got a lot of people from three distinct areas, which all have their own driving culture/unspoken rules, which causes a large number of otherwise avoidable accidents. In Orlando all the driving I've done is by the theme parks, can't recall what traffic was like away from there.

 

[Steve]

It seems that you understand, but just to be sure:

We were previously talking about a lane closure in which drivers in one lane cannot continue in that lane, and must merge. I may not think it's fair that someone continue in the closed lane to the end if it's not as equally occupied as the open lane, but I do have to concede that the zipper merge is supposed to happen.

Where the disagreement comes is in the case of a backed up exit. We'll use the chart below:

View attachment 31809

The red X is the guy I'm talking about. Because of the lane he's in, he's supposed to continue forward (the green arrow). However, the exit lane is backed up, and he drove to the front of it to cut in.

There's is no obligation to "zipper merge" or let this guy in. He needs to get off at the next exit (the right way) and take the back streets to his destination. This guy is about to hold up the traffic behind him trying to cut in.

And who does this guy think he is? Is he too good to wait like everyone else? Is better than everyone else? Screw him.

We agree that the guy should have gotten over earlier, if possible. That's definitely the ideal situation.

But that said, a couple of thoughts/observations:

First, I see exits like this all the time, and where they back up significantly it's pretty easy for a driver to miss the end of the line. I've done it myself... you're going 65 MPH down the road and by the time you realize that the exit lane is jammed up, you're past the end of it. I've seen people like half a mile back on a slow exit lane not letting anyone in, even though they're trying to literally avoid cutting in at the front. It's sadly common to see someone put their signal on, not have anyone let them in, and so to avoid literally stopping in a through lane to force their way in at the back, they move up a little, try again, move up a little, try again, until they're at the front doing what you describe.

So, what would you do? Let's say you're in that line above... the blue line... a quarter mile back down the road. The exit is jammed up with congestion. I pull up next to you in the green lane with my signal on... do you let me in? My experience is that you would not, even though we're not even close to the front. I'd expect you to close up any gap to keep me from changing lanes. My experience is that folks who are aggressive at the front of the line are just as aggressive all the way to the back of the line. And that leads to accidents and road rage at its worst.

Second, I'd 100% let the green driver in because it's just safer for everyone to do so. That driver may be cutting the line. But it's just as possible that he tried to get in way back down the line (as described above) and a bunch of aggressive drivers were like, "Not on my watch!" and didn't let him in. Since I can't tell which one he is in the moment, I'll just presume positive intent.

And here's the thing. Outside of a conversation like this, I don't spend a single second thinking about that guy after he's gone. It's just not an issue. But when someone jumps in front of you at the exit, I'm guessing that really riles you up for a while. Right?

Lastly, I'm presuming that the green line is a single driver trying to cut over. If the green driver is actually a green LINE of drivers all merging in at the end, there's a bigger problem at that exit than what we're talking about... something unique to that exit that the DOT probably needs to sort out. And that's going to look more like a zipper merge until it does.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

Simple burglary? There is no such thing when a weapon is involved.
You made an Extreme jump there, for all we know that fleeing felon (not misdemeanor) had also just shot someone ( or was on their way to do so).

You are cherry picking just like the media does trying to create a narrative. Not disclosing the full story, just a part to try to make a (usually incorrect) point.

Steve asked for an example of due process in context, I gave him the statute and amendment. No more fuller disclosure that that. But it requires the due diligence to read and Interpret the whole thing, not cherry pick it.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

I think you should reread your evidence. I read it thoroughly. I’m not trying to create any narrative, the facts are all right there in the story you posted. Im not anti police, I have a lot of respect for people that do that very difficult job. Cops are people too, some of them make mistakes, some of them are bad people, just like anyone in any job anywhere.

 

[Hot Lunch]

We agree that the guy should have gotten over earlier, if possible. That's definitely the ideal situation.

But that said, a couple of thoughts/observations:

First, I see exits like this all the time, and where they back up significantly it's pretty easy for a driver to miss the end of the line. I've done it myself... you're going 65 MPH down the road and by the time you realize that the exit lane is jammed up, you're past the end of it. I've seen people like half a mile back on a slow exit lane not letting anyone in, even though they're trying to literally avoid cutting in at the front. It's sadly common to see someone put their signal on, not have anyone let them in, and so to avoid literally stopping in a through lane to force their way in at the back, they move up a little, try again, move up a little, try again, until they're at the front doing what you describe.

So, what would you do? Let's say you're in that line above... the blue line... a quarter mile back down the road. The exit is jammed up with congestion. I pull up next to you in the green lane with my signal on... do you let me in? My experience is that you would not, even though we're not even close to the front. I'd expect you to close up any gap to keep me from changing lanes. My experience is that folks who are aggressive at the front of the line are just as aggressive all the way to the back of the line. And that leads to accidents and road rage at its worst.

Second, I'd 100% let the green driver in because it's just safer for everyone to do so. That driver may be cutting the line. But it's just as possible that he tried to get in way back down the line (as described above) and a bunch of aggressive drivers were like, "Not on my watch!" and didn't let him in. Since I can't tell which one he is in the moment, I'll just presume positive intent.

And here's the thing. Outside of a conversation like this, I don't spend a single second thinking about that guy after he's gone. It's just not an issue. But when someone jumps in front of you at the exit, I'm guessing that really riles you up for a while. Right?

Lastly, I'm presuming that the green line is a single driver trying to cut over. If the green driver is actually a green LINE of drivers all merging in at the end, there's a bigger problem at that exit than what we're talking about... something unique to that exit that the DOT probably needs to sort out. And that's going to look more like a zipper merge until it does.

I can tell you that it's never been a problem anywhere I've lived. If I miss the end of the line, but at least make an effort to get in as soon as possible, someone will let me in. And I'll do the same. If you're trying to do the right thing, people will respect that. But if you zoom all the way to the front, that's a problem.

Like I said before: if you can't wait, there's always the next exit and the backstreets. More likely than not, it's faster to do that than to wait in the backed up exit lane. And you're not disrespecting other people.

 

[Steve]

I can tell you that it's never been a problem anywhere I've lived. If I miss the end of the line, but at least make an effort to get in as soon as possible, someone will let me in. And I'll do the same. If you're trying to do the right thing, people will respect that. But if you zoom all the way to the front, that's a problem.

Like I said before: if you can't wait, there's always the next exit and the backstreets. More likely than not, it's faster to do that than to wait in the backed up exit lane. And you're not disrespecting other people.

Fair enough. I'm under no delusions that I'm going to convince you to be a more relaxed driver.

Just take it easy out there. More important to get to where you're going safely than sticking it to that other guy. There are hills I'm willing to die on, but enforcing queue lines on a congested exit isn't one of them.

 

[Steve]

Due Process

Hey, had a chance to read this a little more carefully and want to make sure I understand. Are you using the term due process as proxy for legally defensible? It seems like this court document goes back and forth on whether shooting someone constitutes seizure, and so doing so without justifiable cause, the police are depriving the person who got shot due process.

I guess I can see how that works, but I'll say again, it's a new one on me. I'm not arguing anything here... just saying that it's a curious use of a term I'm otherwise pretty familiar with. Learn something new every day, I guess.

 

[Steve]

That’s not the story I read. It said he was a teenager, unarmed, who had stolen a purse and 10 dollars. He was shot in the back of his head while climbing a fence to escape arrest. You really think that he deserved to die like that for a burglary? Now I’m not defending his crime, and if he broke while the homeowner was there and they shot him then that’s on the burglar. But for a police officer to shoot a nonviolent unarmed teenager in the back of the head while they are fleeing and unarmed is wrong. Take it However you like, it’s wrong.

For what it's worth, I agree with you completely. But I didn't get this from @HighKick . I took his post as simply highlighting that this is a form of due process. In other words, if the cops were in the wrong here (which I agree with you, they probably were), they did not afford the teenager due process.

That said, it's possible I have this all wrong. I'm really just trying to sort this out for myself. Reading court documents is a pain in the ***.

 

[Wing Woo Gar]

For what it's worth, I agree with you completely. But I didn't get this from @HighKick . I took his post as simply highlighting that this is a form of due process. In other words, if the cops were in the wrong here (which I agree with you, they probably were), they did not afford the teenager due process.

That said, it's possible I have this all wrong. I'm really just trying to sort this out for myself. Reading court documents is a pain in the ***.

Yeah, he said I was cherry picking to create a narrative, but I have no agenda. It’s just my opinion. @HighKick said the teenager was armed but the report said he was not, and that the officer knew he was a teenager and that the suspect was not armed. @HighKick claimed the suspect was a felon, he may well have been a felon, but even if so, that was undetermined prior to the shooting. In any case, I wasn’t arguing the legality, I was arguing that in my opinion this is not what I want to see from police. I think it was a needless shooting, and I don’t believe it’s right to shoot an unarmed teenager in the back of the head for fleeing.

 

[HighKick]

Yeah, he said I was cherry picking to create a narrative, but I have no agenda. It’s just my opinion. @HighKick said the teenager was armed but the report said he was not, and that the officer knew he was a teenager and that the suspect was not armed. @HighKick claimed the suspect was a felon, he may well have been a felon, but even if so, that was undetermined prior to the shooting. In any case, I wasn’t arguing the legality, I was arguing that in my opinion this is not what I want to see from police. I think it was a needless shooting, and I don’t believe it’s right to shoot an unarmed teenager in the back of the head for fleeing.

You do understand the phrase "for all we know". I made it very clear I know nothing about the particulars of the occurrence.

You and Steve seem to be in a very different place in regards to the conversation.
I am tapping out.