Late to merge

I think people should have 'strong opinions weakly held'. I also think my debate/critical reasoning skill are getting weaker as I get older. So it seems like good practice to argue strongly for a weakly held opinion.

There is a stigma against people who merge late on roadways. Popular behavior dictates that one should vacate the closing lane as soon as signs announce that the lane closes in a few miles. I think those arrogant drivers rushing past rows of idle traffic are actually behaving efficiently and in accordance with Kant's moral imperative. Those who merge at the first sign are slowing everyone down with their conformity.

Merging late is more efficient because it minimizes the duration of time when traffic is constrained to one lane. Having a 50-foot stretch of one-lane road does not slow down traffic as long as the flow of traffic is less than one car per 50 feet of road. But if all traffic merges miles in advance, 1 car/50 ft. of road is enough to cause backup. Merging late maximizes the use of available road, which alleviates bottlenecks.

Merging late concentrates the location where drivers switch lanes. This avoids drivers slowing down further while they negotiate who's changing lanes. Drivers should understand that alternating lanes in the optimal way to merge two lanes into one, and if people use all available roadway, the lanes will be equally full at the point of merging. Since less negotiation is needed, drivers won't need to slow down as much in order to be cautious of unexpected merging.

← Previously: Islandoo | All posts | Next: My Amazon Kindle review →