It is getting better, but still 40% of the time the car at the end of the zipper merge is NOT happy to see you, and thinks they are letting you in.
Signage is helping at the big construction areas.
If you want to show people how it's done, you go the same speed as the cars next to you in the open lane, and zipper merge at the end.
GRRRRR.
Yes, THEY are doing it wrong, because they're early merging. (IDIOTS!) But you are ALSO doing it wrong.
I'm reminded of the George Carlin comment that everyone who drives slower than you is an idiot, and everyone who drives faster than you is an asshole.
The proper way to execute a late zipper merge is to match speeds and merge at the end.
You are not correctly zipper merging if you are passing other cars before merging at the end.
The whole reason zipper merging is efficient and safe is that both lanes of traffic are moving at similar speeds, making merging quick and easy. If you zoom past the other lane of traffic, you are actually worse than the early mergers in terms of safety and efficiency.
Edit: For those of you downvoting me, could you please explain your reasoning? Do you disagree with the content of my message or its delivery?
What would be the point of matching speed with the other lane when you're not actually about to merge?
I've been there. I've been in the backed up lane in traffic with the lane next to me moving much faster, near the speed limit. I often try to get into the fast moving lane and it is a bit scary because it can be difficult to see far back enough to get into the lane without cutting somebody off. I still believe it is the fault of the people in the slower lane for being there though, and it is their responsibility to stay in that lane or find a safe opening to get to the next lane. If I see a bunch of stubborn early mergers, I will assume that is where they want to be and I will drive past them like a bunch the bunch of parked cars they are. But I will indeed not necessarily drive 80+ mph and I will pay close attention to the movements of the cars.
Your speed should not be more than 20mph different from the lane next to you. That's probably at or even past the limit of a safe speed differential.
(1) It's safer (matching speeds reduces odds of and damage from collisions)
(2) It's more efficient (If you zoom ahead, there is a nonzero chance that drivers in the left lane will be annoyed and attempt to block you, reducing global efficiency. Note that there's no loss in going slow since the bottleneck is the constraint. As a result, going slow can only gain and never cost.)
(3) It's fairest (people who arrive at the same time will leave at the same time, regardless of their lane)
Another comment lays out my logic further: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8084137
I know it feels silly to drive slowly in the right lane, but it's safer, more efficient, and fairest. Why wouldn't you do it?
In this situation, of course you're going to pass those other cars (please do so slowly and carefully if you pass them on the right). It would be ridiculous to slow to a standstill with half a kilometer of empty road ahead of you.
When zipper merging works correctly, you usually cannot pass cars in the other lane, because traffic automatically flows in the right way. So in a sense you are right that if you pass cars in the other lane, someone is doing the merging wrong. That someone are the people in the crowded lane, however, not the one of who is passing them in the empty lane.
Even if the second lane is free, it's safer and more efficient to match speeds with the first lane. And shouldn't we take actions that maximize safety and efficiency? Note that there is no global gain from speeding down the right lane, since the bottleneck is what controls the flow.
I suspect many of you will disagree with me, so let me address some possible concerns.
Is it safer? Yes. Generally driving is safer when all vehicles are moving at similar speeds. Relative speeds being low mean that there's plenty of time to react to danger. It's also safer because other drivers are more predictable when going at a single speed.
Is it more efficient? Yes. The bottleneck is constraining the flow, so gains before the bottleneck end up being useless. The important thing is to make sure that traffic is entering the bottleneck at a fast, consistent speed. Predictable and uncontested merges are the best way to stop the traffic lane from slowing. Going at the speed of the left lane offers two benefits here. First, it's easier and more predictable to merge when you travel at the same speed as other traffic. Second, if you travel at the same speed as other drivers, they won't get annoyed at you and attempt block you out (to everyone's detriment).
Is it weird? Yes. Driving below the speed limit with space in front of you is an odd thing to do. But in this case, you're matching the speed of traffic and there's no global opportunity cost because the bottleneck ahead is the constraint, not your speed. It's weird, but it makes sense.
The reason that the zipper merge is recommended by so many travel departments is not because it's straight-up more efficient than other merging strategies - it's because it's more robust to defection.
But just because it is robust to defection, that doesn't mean the optimal strategy is to defect.
For those of you who disagree, why? Could you point out where you feel my logic fell short?
What should the speed be for somebody in the unoccupied lane? Certainly 80km/h is far too much. On the other hand, it also doesn't make sense (IMHO) to come to a complete stop in the free lane just because cars in the occupied lane have to stop. I feel that a steady 30km/h is a good compromise.
Does that sound reasonable to you?