Hacker News Reader

Comment by kazinator | Hacker News Reader

Americans could rather use a robot highway driving instructor.

"Consider moving over to the right line; you're driving at the speed limit, and a speeding car is approaching; you may confirm this in the rear-view mirror."

"I have detected that you came to a full stop at the end of a generous freeway entrance ramp in light traffic. Suggested future action: look over the shoulder as early as possible and match the speed of the traffic."

"Suddenly exiting out of the left lane is dangerous. Please know which exit you're supposed to take, watch for its approach early, and change lanes ahead of time. If you miss an exit, do not make a sudden, dangerous action. Look for an alternate route or U-turn starting at the next exit."

View on HN

From personal experience a lot of people would benefit from Blinker Usage 101.

Poor blinker usage drives me nuts.

Yes, there are some cases where, well, stuff happens. A driver forgets until the last minute. Many times I see them hit the blinker a split second after they've changed lanes.

But far more frequently, I see the driver who is drifting between lanes at will, without thinking of the blinker, and seemingly without a care in the world. This is disturbing, especially since if I'm seeing the behavior, I'm behind the driver. That means it's my job to figure out where the winds will blow them next.

Too many times I see idiots posting on Facebook or texting as I pass. Many times this is when we're both doing 65mph or more. Insane stuff.

This isn't full auto driving, but every little step helps.

If you want to cut in, gaining an advantage over traffic, it behooves you to keep your intent undisclosed. Some drivers in the advantaged lane will make it difficult to merge if they see the intent, by closing the gaps. (Those who make it easy are enablers of cutting-in behavior, despised by everyone).

It's safer if you don't announce your intent; you don't want to be encouraging the driver in the target lane to be trying to close the gap that you're swinging into.

In most other normal situations, blink, damn it!

This is fucking ridiculous. Surely all drivers have to change lanes at some point to get where they're going; why do they all actively attempt to thwart other drivers from getting into the lanes they need?

That's the competitive reality of driving in congested, urban areas.

Drivers who cut in can save a lot of time over the course of a commute. They disrupt traffic flows and delay everyone else. So efficient traffic flows have to be defended.

> Surely all drivers have to change lanes at some point to get where they're going;

Yes, and some drivers like, for instance, to pass around 25 other cars who are making the same merge.

The problem is that traffic engineers disagree with your assessment of efficiency. You are effectively using aggressive driving (a crime) in order to circumvent actual laws (yield to mergers) and to self-righteously defend the worldview that you have constructed in order to provide a superficially logically consistent explanation for your emotional frustration about losing out.

> traffic engineers disagree with your assessment of efficiency.

Do they?

> You are effectively using aggressive driving

Not me, personally. (I ride a bicycle and use transit from time to time, and the occasional rental car on weekends and holidays: out of the vicious rush-hour traffic.)

Fact is, if you throw a blinker, there will be those drivers who will reduce gaps and not let you in. Usually not in merge situations (as in, you can't join this freeway, bugger off!) but situations in where the lane change is not necessary (you're not entitled to swerve into this lane just because it's moving faster!). I agree with them; they are doing the right thing. It can usually be done safely, within the "two second rule" for following another vehicle, depending on speed. Be it right or wrong, safe or unsafe, if you want to outwit those who are doing it, you have to do the wrong thing an not blink.

Not letting people join a freeway is despicable. (It happens too: "Hey, you can merge here ... just not in front of me, thank you very much!") The do-not-blink principle does not apply there, because it's obvious that you want to merge whether you blink or not, being in a merging lane and all! My comments don't apply to that situation at all.

I'm not sure I'm understanding your position very well. Are you saying that people exiting the slow lanes to enter the "moving lane" constitutes a hazard, and by punishing those actors by not letting them in, you are minimizing that hazard? If so, i'm inclined to agree philosophically.

However, I don't believe anyone should impose their philosophy with 2 tons of steel.

RE: traffic science, here are some references http://www.amazon.com/Traffic-Drive-What-Says-About/dp/03072... http://www.edmunds.com/driving-tips/car-merging-psychology-d...

> in order to circumvent actual laws (yield to mergers)

Mergers must yield to drivers already in the roadway. The only obligation those on the roadway have is to not speed up or slow down to prevent the merge.

You're right. I had misread the law.

Although zipper merges are supposedly more efficient :-)

http://arstechnica.com/cars/2014/07/the-beauty-of-zipper-mer...

That is completely inapplicable to drivers who are already merged into the correct section of freeway and just want to zig-zag between lanes based on what they think is faster at any moment.

If you're not one of these drivers, it benefits your trip time if you prevent their actions by not creating easy opportunities for them to slip in.

If you are one of these drivers, it benefits your trip time if you successfully carry out the zig-zagging. To that end, it behooves you not to announce your intended moves. If you do, you reduce your opportunities, because you're relying on those who enable this behavior by letting zig-zagging drivers in. In other words, not-blinking is a rational game strategy.

Okay, maybe we are talking about different things. Skipping a clearly identifiable line is one thing - the driver sees that they could just get in line and decides not to.

I am more interested in why you would actively avoid making space when there is no clear way to get into the lane except by finding an open space.

Because, for one thing, it's not someone's god-given right to move from a lane that is nearly standing still from one that is moving fast.

"Gee whiz, I just joined this freeway, and damn it, I'm gonna edge my my way all the way to the fast moving left most lane at practically ninety degrees to the traffic flow."

If they are just changing lanes to find the one that's fastest at any moment, sure. If their destination is only reachable from that lane then yes, it is their right to use the public roadways regardless of how much it displeases you that you share them with other people.

> If their destination is only reachable from that lane then ...

If there are jerks who don't want to let anyone in front of them in a situation where you're just trying to merge in, it will not help you not to blink; my comments about not blinking as a strategy do not apply.

Still, those merge-preventing jerks are acting rationally in their self-interest. If a flow of traffic behaves in such a way that it impedes the ingress of a joining flow, then that flow does in fact reduce its trip time. (The effect on the average trip time for everyone is another matter, which they don't care about, obviously).

I don't think it's about time or efficiency at all. I think it has to do with perceived fairness and our self-righteous culture. The faster-moving disappearing lane gets an inherent advantage, which could have been renounced by merging too early. People feel cheated. The problem is that, objectively, people merging all over the place creates more traffic than a uniform zipper merge so we all suffer.

In reality, the laws are very explicit (at least in GA where I live), and the person merging has priority. Anyone in an existing lane when a lane disappears is legally required to yield.

Additionally, everyone is entitled to this same advantage so it's really not unfair at all.

> at least in GA where I live [...] the person merging has priority [...] anyone in an existing lane when a lane disappears is legally required to yield.

That sounds so crazy and contrary to everywhere I've been in the civilized world that I refuse to believe it (as you have written it) without some chapter and verse citation from the GA traffic code.

If it is literally true, it means that in GA, I can drive down a merge ramp and not even look at what is coming down the freeway; they have to hit their brakes or swerve to adjust to what I'm doing. I'm in a merge lane, which ends, and thus I have priority over anyone in an existing lane that isn't ending!

Any special rules about making it mandatory to let merging vehicles in have to be somehow crafted to they only apply to the obvious situations that they are intended for.

Or they have to apply in special places where signage clearly indicates that two flows are merging such that neither has the right of way. For instance the "Form 1 Lane" traffic sign or whatever. "Form 1 lane" effectively means both lanes are ending, and a new one is starting with equal priority access.

Relevant code: http://law.justia.com/codes/georgia/2010/title-40/chapter-6/...

"The driver of a vehicle about to enter or cross a roadway from any place other than another roadway shall yield the right of way to all vehicles approaching on the roadway to be entered or crossed."

My search suggested highway on ramps are "other than another roadway."

Also see: http://www.eregulations.com/georgia/driver/laws-governing-ri...

"If you are about to enter or cross a highway from an alley, private road or highway, you must stop and yield the right-of-way to all other pedestrians and vehicles already traveling on the roadway or sidewalk you are entering or crossing;"

> (Those who make it easy are enablers of cutting-in behavior, despised by everyone).

Heaven forbid we want to avoid a collision, instead of tailgating, so that you can get to wherever you're going two seconds sooner.

I've never found that to be an advantage. Usually if I indicate that I want to pull in, the driver behind me will immediately make room. On the rare occasions when they don't, it often turns out they had a good reason for keeping me out (like something they could see but I couldn't.) I'm comfortable assuming that's always the case.

This is how it is in Los Angeles. Lane space must be seized with an iron will. Freely giving it away is a sign of weakness that will be punished.

Not to mention the idiots who refuse to turn on their lights, even in a rainstorm with overcast skies, unless it's after 9pm, because after all, they can still see the road just fine!

Not using the blinker, or using one falsely, should be a rare practice which is always strategic. When it's done out of stupid neglect, it's such a waste.

I agree completely, but the very first thing they'd do would be figure out how to turn it off or muffle it. Bad drivers are not the type to take feedback well or let things like the rules get in the way.

Yeah... the same people who resent seat belt laws, because they're afraid of being trapped in the car after an accident, and feel much safer being thrown through the windshield so they can get up and walk away.

"It looks like you're trying to make a left turn! Need some help?" -Clippy

My reaction is the complete opposite.

I see people buying these $20k safe cars for their teenage children, who will be

1) less skilled as drivers

2) feel empowered to push the limits of impaired driving

Seriously, putting cars with brake-assist technology in the hands of drivers who are already overrepresented in accident statistics is a good thing. Life doesn't have to be hard-mode all the time.

But, on the other hand, teenage children getting $20K cars will always fall into the problem category of ... teenage children getting $20K cars.

Even if a trend breaks out whereby cars with self-driving abilities are chosen by parents who are gifting their spoiled offspring with new automobiles, that trend is temporary; eventually the capability will become commonplace, like ABS and air bags. Teenagers will then be getting their licenses using such cars, whether or not their parents are spoiling them with new cars.

Eventually, even relatively poor teenagers will be learning to drive and taking their road tests on 25-year-old third-hand beaters which have still-working self-driving functions.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com