Getting the Bird at on ramps.

[piers.singer]

Being confronted with either B. or C. has me diving for the next lane because the former makes it near-impossible to merge and the latter precludes a horrible accident.

[zonker]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

It's not gibberish, and there is no "wiggle room".

Right of way laws are universally applicable (even on the Left coast), although few drivers today understand the concept of right of way or heed it.

The vehicle ("ALL traffic") on the thoroughfare has the right of way. All entering traffic (read: those about to merge or actually "enter") MUST yield to it.

Part two of your law addresses a car that already DID yield and has entered the highway successfully and safely. Others approaching from behind must then yield to that vehicle. In other words, you can't rear-end a vehicle traveling in the same direction as you are, that has already entered the roadway before you approached it, even if it is moving more slowly than you.

The OP is following the law and does not need to be traveling more than the minimum allowable speed limit, especially if he is in the rightmost lane, which is where slower moving traffic (such as him) belongs.

Thank you for the clarification - I kind of thought that as well, that b applies only when a is adhered to. But I see that all it would take is a well bankrolled lawyer to argue his point to get the mad merger off the hook by claiming the driver in traffic did not yield once he made the safe merge.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

If they flip you the bird, smile and wave at them. If they hit you, expect to be paid 100% for their failure to yield right of way.

When I have an uptight offending driver, I smile and yell "Jesus Loves You!"

Because I sure the hell don't!

[Arragonis]

Originally Posted by piers.singer

Being confronted with either B. or C. has me diving for the next lane because the former makes it near-impossible to merge and the latter precludes a horrible accident.

Yep, but the really annoying thing on some on-ramps is lights intended to 'ration' the number of cars joining busy intersections.

This means that the joining traffic all accelerate at the speed of the slowest truck / van and end up trying to 'merge' as a solid nose to tail line.

Even if the traffic already on the motorways moves over, you then end up with a line of drivers who have just joined - who seemingly have issues with their masculinity - desperately trying to pull out into the passing lanes as soon as possible to pass that slow truck / van.

And when they do they then tailgate the car in front in an attempt to bully anyone out of their way because they have to be first...

Audi and SAAB drivers usually, although I have noticed that the new Mazda 6 is becoming a favourite amongst the inadequate male driver these days.

Rant over.

[dcb]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

...
This means that the joining traffic all accelerate at the speed of the slowest truck / van and end up trying to 'merge' as a solid nose to tail line.

If I'm on the ramp I will hang back in those situations, leaving the buffer intact (in front of me anyway) and room for me to adjust at merge time (and I absolutely do not care what the guy behind me thinks, the whole point is to merge safely).

If I'm on the hiway, obviously if it is safe for me to move to the left lane I would be doing that. But if I'm faced with a wall of mergers and no where to go, one of them is likely headed for the shoulder (ok, I'll throw in a friendly wave too). In my POS cars, I don't care what you are driving, and the way fault works around here if I make any drastic changes I can become liable, so steady as she goes

[Arragonis]

Agreed - a gap is a solver of all sorts of problems and is safer, unfortunately few people (Mrs A included ) bother to leave a gap. And sometimes if I do anyone behind me sees that act as a crime against their freedom and liberty.

[jtbo]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Yep, but the really annoying thing on some on-ramps is lights intended to 'ration' the number of cars joining busy intersections.

This means that the joining traffic all accelerate at the speed of the slowest truck / van and end up trying to 'merge' as a solid nose to tail line.

Even if the traffic already on the motorways moves over, you then end up with a line of drivers who have just joined - who seemingly have issues with their masculinity - desperately trying to pull out into the passing lanes as soon as possible to pass that slow truck / van.

And when they do they then tailgate the car in front in an attempt to bully anyone out of their way because they have to be first...

Audi and SAAB drivers usually, although I have noticed that the new Mazda 6 is becoming a favourite amongst the inadequate male driver these days.

Rant over.

Added rule where one that did merge from ramp should not move to left lane for 1/4 mile after joining from ramp, would cure one issue, imo.

Road where there is one lane in each direction are most where I drive, yesterday I got overtaken by a RV, there was on coming traffic, but RV driver ignored that and surely he plowed onto oncoming traffic, which did slow down quite fast while I did move completely out from lane to right, making room. With those kind of drivers it is no wonder there are issues on bigger roads with ramps and two lanes to same direction.

It was about half mile after that where bigger road started where was two lanes to same direction, RV driver did win perhaps 10 seconds by that move.

Daily issues on our roads, too many incapable drivers on road.

[jtbo]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

Agreed - a gap is a solver of all sorts of problems and is safer, unfortunately few people (Mrs A included ) bother to leave a gap. And sometimes if I do anyone behind me sees that act as a crime against their freedom and liberty.

Search of lost gap, that is bit of issue indeed, there is no any logical reason for driving so close, usually those drivers have brake lights coming on constantly too, it does amuse me, as I can easily drive 200 miles without touching a brake pedal.

I have come to conclusion that it is because many don't think, they feel, so they drive with their emotions and as any one having even tiny bit of education knows, emotion is similar to alcohol, both will cause poor judgement and increase potential to disasters, however only one is banned when driving.

Cool rational thinking should be requirement to be able to drive a car, that way there would be a lot less of issues on roads.

[Arragonis]

I don't drive without using my brakes, but I rarely have to use them for a quick stop. I do use them for slowing though - brakes are cheaper and easier to maintain than clutches...

There is something here call the 2 second rule - choose a fixed point and see if 2 seconds elapse between the car in front passing that point and you doing the same. If under 2 seconds, drop back.

[jtbo]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

I don't drive without using my brakes, but I rarely have to use them for a quick stop. I do use them for slowing though - brakes are cheaper and easier to maintain than clutches...

There is something here call the 2 second rule - choose a fixed point and see if 2 seconds elapse between the car in front passing that point and you doing the same. If under 2 seconds, drop back.

I don't use clutch either, well only when starting to move from standstill. Not using brakes teaches eye to see lot further ahead and to plan ahead, which results better fuel economy.

Still I do use brakes occasionally, but then I push them firmly, like on downhill with speedtrap on unknown road, I brake quick and firmly, that makes parts move and does not wear pads so much, keeps brakes functioning perfectly.

That I have learned from circuit racing, brake temps get high if riding the brakes, when braking it should be done stong and quick, then back to power.

Of course traffic sometimes gets on way, but healthy gap helps with that quite a bit.

2 seconds is told to be average reaction time, car travels over 40 meters in that time, stopping on dry asphalt takes additional 50 meters, so anything less than 100 meters is quite little gap on speeds of 50mph, ~5 seconds gap is minimum recommended, more is better.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Arragonis

There is something here call the 2 second rule - choose a fixed point and see if 2 seconds elapse between the car in front passing that point and you doing the same. If under 2 seconds, drop back.

That's only half the rule.

The missing part says your 2 second gap will get halved within the next 2 seconds