- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostFree Stuff Fridays
- Next Post »Say 'Happy Birthday' to Jerry Bridges
The Right Way to Merge
- 11/21/09
- 15
A few days ago I wrote about late merging and, not unexpectedly, got a lot of feedback. This is, after all, a universal experience. What amused me was the anger many of the early mergers feel toward the late mergers. Many people make this into a moral issue or a spiritual issue, as if God has offered us a "thus saith the Lord" when it comes to the ethics of merging. As Tom Vanderbilt says in the book Traffic, there seems to be a whole worldview contained in early merge or late merge strategies. The conventional merge, the situation we all find ourselves in every time we drive in traffic, "tosses the late mergers and the early mergers together in an unholy tempest of conflicting beliefs, expectations, and actions. Perhaps not surprisingly, it performs the worst of all."
Having done the legwork and having consulted with the experts, here is Vanderbilt's conclusion on how to best handle merging. I thought I would post it today just to tie up the loose end of that conversation.
The next time you find yourself on a congested four-land road and you see that a forced merge is coming, don't panic. Do not stop, do not swerve into the other lane. Simply stay in your lane--if there is a lot of traffic, the distribution between both lanes should be more or less equal--all the way to the merge point. Those in the lane that is remaining open should allow one person from the lane to be closed in ahead of them, and then proceed (those doing the merging must take a similar turn). By working together, by abandoning our individual preferences and our distrust of others' preferences, in favor of a simple set of objective rules, we can make things better for everyone.
So there you have it. Traffic will flow best if there is an even distribution of late mergers to early mergers and if everyone does their best to alternate. Just stay in the lane you are in until it makes most sense to come together. You need the late mergers and the early mergers to work together if you want traffic to flow with the fewest interruptions.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I write books and blogs for fun while doing web design and consulting for a living. I worship and serve at 
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
Comments (15)
Great stuff. Thanks for helping me see my late-merging brothers in a more compassionate light.
Is there anything in there on merging where the on & off ramps meet? Lots of confusion going on there too.
I'm a LATE merger. The reason? There's ALWAYS an early merger that is ALSO one who leaves 10 car lengths open between them and the car in front of them. By taking this space, I don't put any other early mergers at a disadvantage. They would still be stuck behind the slow poke.
I've said for years that traffic will flow better if everybody merged late - after all, that's what the road was designed for! Merging a mile early just leaves a mile of empty, unused lane. As you've discovered, this is quite a contentious suggestion, arousing fiery passions.
The second crucial behavior is that people follow a "zipper" pattern at the merge (that is, a car from the left goes, a car from the right goes, a car from the left goes, a car from the right goes, etc) - you can be going quite fast this way. When some drivers try to break this pattern is when the system breaks, everyone must slow down, cars back up, and things grind into an inevitable halt.
UK traffic restrictions attempt to impose "late merger" on the disrupted traffic. You first see a sign that says "WHEN QUEUING USE BOTH LANES"; then, when approaching the merge point, you get the "MERGE IN TURN" sign (= each vehicle in "through" lane, allow in one vehicle from "merging" lane). So there you have it. Enshrined in a government doc, if you're curious. ;)
But what about the last second mergers who seem to be clueless that a lane is ending or that they are merging, but hitherto have had ample time and to merge? Early merging in non-heavy traffic with turn signals lets me know that the other person isn't clueless about their surroundings.
I read Traffic last year and found it quite enjoyable, and this is one of the best insights i gained. I'm no longer an early merger. Thanks, Tim.
'Merging...' I thought Tim was going to write on something with a bit more substance and relevence for discussion.. like ecumenism. The Pope would love the Anglicans to merge back into the papal stronghold for a start.
Or maybe 'merging' as the next movement after 'post emergent'. Kind of like emergent coming out of something, followed by something going back into (the merging church movement..). Ah the 'merging church movement' will bring together all those lanes of christendom.. now who will be the late mergers? Died in the wool reformed guys? The apostate liberals (they've already left the road and crashed? .... Who merged first? Ah I can see you all saying.. Willow Creek and the seeker sensitive lot and modern touchy feeley evangelicalism which wanted to show how much it loves one another.
I just don't get the moral superiority of the folks who feel the need to take control of the traffic situation for all the 'stupid' people on the road. I recall a letter to the editor a few years back from a gentleman letting everyone know that when it''s snowing and road conditions are hazardous, "reasonable" drivers should take the lead and set a safe speed limit for other drivers. In other words, he's the guy driving 35 MPH in the passing lane at the sign of the first snowflake (around Oct. 1 in Ohio), thinking he's doing us all a favor!
I had a sudden thought on this topic as a "type".
People resent folks that wiz by them in hopes of a merger way ahead of them.
They have obeyed the rules, followed all the signs and wait patiently for their reward..(an escape from the gridlock).Why should those rule breakers get a break??Why should they be rewarded when they showed no moral fortitude, no patience ??
It is rather like those "Christians" that believe that reward is in their obedience. They often resent those the wiz , who believes that he is saved (rewarded) not by his obedience but by the obedience of Christ.The idea that a mass murdered or rapist might merge into THEIR lane (to heaven) ahead of them, when they played by the rules is "unacceptable"
I always allow mergers to take a place ahead of me in real life situations BTW.
I'm so glad we have that cleared up.
Slightly OT, when I can't get an aisle or window seat and am stuck in the middle seat, shouldn't I have control over both arm rests? It's only fair.
And...people seated in row 22 that put their carry on in my overhead at row 9...may I have permission to unzip their bag so everything falls out when take it down?
"people seated in row 22 that put their carry on in my overhead at row 9...may I have permission to unzip their bag so everything falls out when take it down?"
Yes, of course you may. No, not really. I'm just juvenile enough to think that would be hilarious.
"Early, late mergers"That sounds like better fodderFor a marriage thread :)
Maybe you need to do a post next on the ethics of weaving.
I think of early-merger anger against the late-mergers as Kindergarten syndrome. We were told early in life to get in line and not cut in line.
Terry,
Love that analogy!
I personally don't care much where someone merges, as long as they don't violate the "zipper rule" and don't actually merge past the end of the lane. Anything else is usually disruptive.
There are definitely regional issues to deal with, too. When I lived in the South, it would drive me crazy that people would often refuse to adjust their speed to match the lane they're merging into. Even if I slowed down to open up a space for them, they wouldn't speed up to get into it.
Here in Southern California, it's mostly the opposite problem. People will wedge themselves in wherever they can, regardless of how disruptive it is.