"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
11/11/2019 at 16:00 • Filed to: road design, lane discipline, traffic laws, infrastructure, traffic control, traffic control devices
0
17|
"Urambo Tauro" (urambotauro)
11/11/2019 at 16:00 • Filed to: road design, lane discipline, traffic laws, infrastructure, traffic control, traffic control devices | 0
| 17 |
Traffic Control Devices (TCDs) come in many forms. Road markings, signs, traffic signals, VMS boards, etc. And they’re usually pretty easy to understand. But on the rare occasion that they’re not, whom should one contact for interpretation?
Local road commission? State DOT? Local police? State police? A lawyer specializing in traffic law? In theory, they should all offer the same advice. But what if they offer differing opinions? Who would be the most knowledgeable and most authoritative?
I’ve got a few hard questions that I’d love to get resolved, but here’s just one example of a case that I struggle with on a daily basis: “right lane ends; merge left”.
When/where exactly is the right time/place to merge left? Of course adjustments need to be made when merging among other drivers, but surely there’s an ideal point for merging when the road is clear? If the speed limit begins precisely at the speed limit sign; is there a similar rule for merging? Does the yellow coloring of these signs render them as nothing more than unenforceable advisory signage, as opposed to the white backgrounds used on regulatory signs?
In my area, most drivers seem to consider it prudent to merge as early as possible, securing the Unending Lane miles before the merge point. But this becomes a big problem when the left/inside/passing lane becomes backed up, extending the traffic jam twice as far as it otherwise could be. It even becomes a problem before you reach the actual congestion, as timid drivers who like to drive 5-10 mph below the posted speed limit jump into the lane way too early.
Sadly, my state (MI) does not mandate zipper merging like Minnesota does. (Update: my bad, MN hasn’t actually made it a statewide law yet. LAME) Right-of-way still belongs to whomever is already in the lane, and many will fiercely defend that R-O-W, blocking what they perceive to be unfair attempts to get ahead.
The main focus of my question revolves around the conflict created by this type of lane drop in view of our left lane laws. According to
!!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!!
, we are to keep right, driving “in the extreme right-hand lane available for travel”, leaving the left lane open for turning left, passing slower vehicles, and rush hour traffic volumes. Slower drivers are to stay in the right-most lane, and faster drivers are to return to the right-most lane at their earliest opportunity. The right/curb lane is supposed to be our default lane of travel, but the threat of an upcoming lane drop really screws with everybody’s willingness to drive in that lane at all.
To help relieve this stressful and awkward situation, two solutions come to mind:
Replace the signs with “LEFT lane ends; merge RIGHT” ones, and paint the road lines accordingly
Mandate and enforce zipper merging at the merge point
(Personally, I’d like to see both happen)
Funny thing is, our Department of Transportation is already well aware of the benefits of zipper merging, thanks in part to this !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! from Wayne State University submitted to MDOT over a decade ago. It’s a far superior and way more efficient method than what we have now, but legally speaking, right-of-way still technically belongs to traffic already in the unending lane. No matter how much MDOT !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! and !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! zipper merging, the rest of the state does not require it. And if they do enforce it, it’s only happening where MDOT has placed signs ordering zipper merges at specific construction zones. They know it’s a good idea, but have yet to make it official statewide.
But the choice of signage deserves attention too. Seriously, why bolt up a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! , when it would be just as easy to bolt up a !!!error: Indecipherable SUB-paragraph formatting!!! instead? And if the right lane doesn’t line up with the single remaining lane after the merge point, all it takes is a little paint on the road to direct the lane shift. Note how this broken line in the image below aims to keep traffic to the right instead of letting them continue in a straight line. A similar diagonal line could be used prior to a lane drop merge point to help show left-laners that they are running out of room.
Anything would be better than a system that literally, directly rewards left-lane hogging. But I digress... Until we get better road/TCD design, we need clarity on how the current system is actually supposed to work. Who should be my first choice in directing these questions toward? The DOT or road commission in charge of road design? The cops who enforce traffic law? The lawyers who study the verbiage on the books?
(Again, lawyers, police, and road authorities should theoretically all offer the same advice, but here’s a quick story to explain my doubts: I once asked a local police officer about our left lane laws and he denied that there was any problem with cruising indefinitely in the left lane. I later received a totally different answer from a state trooper. The apparent conflict has shaken my faith in getting a straight answer that I can trust.)
Chariotoflove
> Urambo Tauro
11/11/2019 at 16:17 |
|
I have no answers for you, only mildly re lated entertainment:
Textured Soy Protein
> Urambo Tauro
11/11/2019 at 16:31 |
|
The problem with any new merging schemes or road signs or whatever else is you’re assuming the average American driver will obey any of that.
ttyymmnn
> Chariotoflove
11/11/2019 at 16:34 |
|
I just had to google that .
|
Urambo Tauro
> Textured Soy Protein
11/11/2019 at 16:41 |
|
Yeah, d river education is a big hurdle here . Especially when licenses are getting renewed without refresher courses that could provide updates. It doesn’t help that drivers in my area have demonstrated the ability to ignore signs that w ould otherwise help them choose a more favorable lane ...
wafflesnfalafel
> Urambo Tauro
11/11/2019 at 16:55 |
|
yeah... lots of folks just don’t know how to use passing lanes... or worse, get mad when folks that do, use them. Plus a general lack of situational awareness. I really don’t think increasing/updating signage would help in most situations. If folks don’t pay attention to huge trucks trying to get around them, they sure aren’t going to take the time to read the signs... And lastly you are always going to have a small percentage of the population who just actively disobey in order to get a few cars ahead. I have an interchange merge I do pretty much everyday that gets backed up simply because of the 2-3% of the population that run down one lane then stop and try to cut back into the lane they want in order to get about 25 car lengths ahead. Sure you can pull a few over, but you just can’t police it 100% of the time. But all that said - I do agree that state DOTs can design better traffic structures and interchanges to lessen those kinds of impacts. Remove situations that give folks an incentive to do the wrong thing.
|
Urambo Tauro
> wafflesnfalafel
11/11/2019 at 17:06 |
|
It might be appropriate to temporarily install a flashing yellow light directly on top of a new sign , or to park a VMS trailer nearby, warning of new signage ahead . It’s not unheard-of for them to do that in my state.
|
Chariotoflove
> ttyymmnn
11/11/2019 at 17:18 |
|
Pretty wild as signs go.
|
ttyymmnn
> Chariotoflove
11/11/2019 at 17:23 |
|
TBH, I think it is pretty clear, though definitely strange.
|
Chariotoflove
> ttyymmnn
11/11/2019 at 17:28 |
|
You might have french blood in you.
|
ttyymmnn
> Chariotoflove
11/11/2019 at 17:32 |
|
It’s called “merlot.”
|
wafflesnfalafel
> Urambo Tauro
11/11/2019 at 17:48 |
|
yeah - some of those super bright flashy LED units.
Highlander-Datsuns are Forever
> Urambo Tauro
11/11/2019 at 18:49 |
|
The federal DOT sets the design standards for roadway markings. I worked for a state DOT for a while and it’s hilarious how lax those standards are interpreted. There is an intent in how things are laid out, at least in the engineers mind. That does not always translate well into practice .
ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
> Urambo Tauro
11/11/2019 at 20:12 |
|
It sounds like the authority you are seeking is the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices for Streets and Highways. The MUTCD is administered by the USDOT under the Federal Highway Administration. Some states have their own subset of more specific regulations in the form of state uniform traffic control devices manuals, but they are all based on the federal manual. It the bible from which all traffic control standards adhere from. The National Committee on Uniform Traffic Control Devices is the advisory body the develops and recommends changes to the MUTCD.
Enjoy a very 1998 website brought to you by your federal tax dollars. In the alternative, the government documents department of any academic library (and maybe a larger public library) should have print copies of the various volumes.
|
Urambo Tauro
> ITA97, now with more Jag @ opposite-lock.com
11/11/2019 at 21:05 |
|
Been looking at (my state’s version of) that a little. Fascinating document, but i t doesn’t seem to outline a specific proximity to the intended merging point.
Sometimes I see the L ane E nds si gn placed directly adjacent to the last broken line between lanes, indicating that there are no longer two lanes, but one wide one (narrowing soon). Sometimes I see the sign placed 100 yards before that last broken line. So metimes it’s 300 yards. And sometimes there isn’t a yellow sign at all, just a white sign showing that the right-most lane ( previously a forward travel lane) is (surprise!) now a right-turn only lane.
The MMUTCD also doesn’t seem to offer any design guid elines for choos ing which lane should be kept, and which one shou ld end during a lane drop.
Duck Duck Grey Duck FTMFW!
> Urambo Tauro
11/12/2019 at 11:08 |
|
Wait. Hold on. You're telling me Minnesota mandates zipper merging? I have lived here my whole life and have yet to see it done correctly.
|
Urambo Tauro
> Duck Duck Grey Duck FTMFW!
11/12/2019 at 11:19 |
|
So the rumor goes.. . Looking it up , it appears to have been only a rumor after all. Despite MN’s popularity for telling their drivers to do t he zipper merge , it seems to actually be more of a “good idea” than a re al statewide law. You might still b e subject to Traffic Control Devices explicitly directing traffic to “stay in lane” and “merge here” at specific location , but I guess the ZM isn’t required anywhere else.
That’s disappointing. I had held MN in such high regard for requiring zipper merges, and the rule turns out to be much weaker than I thought.
|
Duck Duck Grey Duck FTMFW!
> Urambo Tauro
11/12/2019 at 16:30 |
|
And we SUUUUCK at it.