• NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    7 months ago

    If traffic is free flowing and an opportunity presents itself then it’s still better to merge earlier.

    • callouscomic@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      7 months ago
      1. That’s not the discussion.
      2. Why/How is it better? If traffic is flowing and there is space to be literally NOT disruptive to flow, then it doesn’t make a difference where you merge.

      I’ll bet though that when you merge, it is actually slightly disrupting flow as the person behind backs off, and then everyone else slightly adjusts. Now multiply this by more cars merging wherever they damn well feel like? If traffic is flowing and enough gaps exist so nobody has to adjust at all, then the merging literally doesn’t matter and it’s not the same argument.

      • NewNewAccount@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 months ago

        Because as the lane is ending, the entire distance from wherever you are to wherever the lane ends is an opportunity to merge without disturbing other traffic. When the lane ends, that moment is now forced, leading to a higher likelihood of the driver(s) behind having to brake more abruptly and/or to an even lower speed.

        • callouscomic@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Both drivers knew the merge end was coming. Unless they’re morons. People are morons. That’s why this is an argument.