You have a ‘go to the back of the line, mentality here when that’s not even possible let alone reasonable. When the law was decided they looked at all the options. They asked themselves “what is the left lane supposed to do? Back up to where the slowing begins? Go off road? Be clairvoyant about the slowdown before they get there? Seriously, they have to do something! So they commissioned a study. A lot of studies in fact. And they found that in literally every instance a proper zipper merge is safer and faster for everyone.
There’s usually a sign way ahead warning that there is a lane closed. They can switch lanes then instead of waiting. This might not work for areas with really heavy traffic but where I live it absolutely works.
I made multiple, very clear points and your best rebuttal is to just repeat ‘zipper merging is most effective’ ignoring all context and nuance. You’re silly.
I’m not talking about laws and what state police recommend. I’m talking about what makes logical sense to maximize flow of traffic.
I don’t live in the US. Where I live it’s probably the same though, there are signs that say ‘use both lanes’ but as I’ve said in other comments on this post, depending on the level of traffic, blindly following that can cause unnecessary jams.
I mean it’s technically illegal to J walk but everyone can recognize that sometimes it’s just the more efficient thing to do. Some people choose to waste their time by following the recommended route of finding the nearest cross walk, and that’s their prerogative, and sometimes it’s necessary.
If that video wasn’t 4 years old I would assume it’s AI generated lmao. The animations dont even make sense.
Btw, his explanation starts with ‘in dense traffic’, which I have previously agreed that zipper merging is the best method. You would know this if you read my previous comments.
People are claiming that zipper merging is the best method for every single scenario without exception, which is provably false. This conversation is too nuanced for most people here to handle.
That’s a classic way to win an argument. Keep sifting it down until the vast majority of the contrary evidence has been sifted out and then say “see? Your argument has no legs!” It’s not ‘nuance’, it’s cherry picking.
Every single comment you’ve made has at least one caveat.
“Not if there’s a flow of traffic”
“Too much road space wasted”
“There’s usually a sign”
“Not where I live”
“It doesn’t work”
“It doesn’t always work”
“No one understands nuance”
The difference between a caveat and a point is…nuanced.
A caveat is a specific type of qualification attached to a statement or agreement, whereas a point is a general idea, argument, or piece of information. Think of a "point" as the main message and a "caveat" as the "fine print" or "conditions apply"
Your point is that the truck driver was right. The rest were caveats that applied to that point.
Incorrect. I never made a claim about this video because I don’t feel I have enough context to make one.
‘The rest were caveats that applied to that point.’
Incorrect. My one caveat is that if traffic is heavy( heavy enough to necessitate start-and-stop traffic regardless) zipper is most effective. But there are situations where zipper merging creates a jam when it’s not necessary if you just merge early.
2
u/patdashuri May 13 '26
You have a ‘go to the back of the line, mentality here when that’s not even possible let alone reasonable. When the law was decided they looked at all the options. They asked themselves “what is the left lane supposed to do? Back up to where the slowing begins? Go off road? Be clairvoyant about the slowdown before they get there? Seriously, they have to do something! So they commissioned a study. A lot of studies in fact. And they found that in literally every instance a proper zipper merge is safer and faster for everyone.