Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Emailed the Traffic Safety Commander and they clarified the rules on merges.
Vehicles in lane 2 (lane that ends) are responsible for merging safely.
Drivers in lane 1 do not have to let others merge, it is only a courtesy. They have the right of way.
Same rules apply to highway entrance ramps.
So I did not have the right of way... Seems unfair and not intuitive. Lane is ending, turn signals in use and vehicle D has a better view + ability to avoid a dangerous situation. Whereas I realistically have to stop in my lane, which is dangerous, and wait for train of cars to pass. Or slow down even further to merge behind D which is a problem due to speed difference...
Emailed the Traffic Safety Commander and they clarified the rules on merges.
Vehicles in lane 2 (lane that ends) are responsible for merging safely.
Drivers in lane 1 do not have to let others merge, it is only a courtesy. They have the right of way.
Same rules apply to highway entrance ramps.
So I did not have the right of way... Seems unfair and not intuitive. Lane is ending, turn signals in use and vehicle D has a better view + ability to avoid a dangerous situation. Whereas I realistically have to stop in my lane, which is dangerous, and wait for train of cars to pass. Or slow down even further to merge behind D which is a problem due to speed difference...
It would be more dangerous for the car in the main travel lane to have to potentially stop.
Emailed the Traffic Safety Commander and they clarified the rules on merges.
Vehicles in lane 2 (lane that ends) are responsible for merging safely.
Drivers in lane 1 do not have to let others merge, it is only a courtesy. They have the right of way.
Same rules apply to highway entrance ramps.
So I did not have the right of way... Seems unfair and not intuitive. Lane is ending, turn signals in use and vehicle D has a better view + ability to avoid a dangerous situation. Whereas I realistically have to stop in my lane, which is dangerous, and wait for train of cars to pass. Or slow down even further to merge behind D which is a problem due to speed difference...
Honestly, with how short the lane is they should just get rid of it.
Honestly, with how short the lane is they should just get rid of it.
YUP. The TOC needs to take some responsibility for all these drop away lanes.
But, this is a common refrain I hear from people who've been in an accident "they should have let me in" "they should have just let me back out"....maybe so but the person in control of the lane, roundabout, roadway, whatever - has the right of way.
They should really require passage of a written test every 10 years, but in the industry we call this "job security".
Emailed the Traffic Safety Commander and they clarified the rules on merges.
Vehicles in lane 2 (lane that ends) are responsible for merging safely.
Drivers in lane 1 do not have to let others merge, it is only a courtesy. They have the right of way.
Same rules apply to highway entrance ramps.
So I did not have the right of way... Seems unfair and not intuitive. Lane is ending, turn signals in use and vehicle D has a better view + ability to avoid a dangerous situation. Whereas I realistically have to stop in my lane, which is dangerous, and wait for train of cars to pass. Or slow down even further to merge behind D which is a problem due to speed difference...
That reply from him is BS. The extra turn lane was added to move traffic from that light. Since they decided to then drop that lane off, it's up to both lanes to help drivers move back to the main lane.
Honestly, with how short the lane is they should just get rid of it.
Unfortunately they can't get rid of it without backing up HWY 55 traffic (going North). It was designed to alleviate congestion.
And I'm guessing they cannot extend it due to private property or perhaps deemed it long enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HouseBuilder328
That reply from him is BS. The extra turn lane was added to move traffic from that light. Since they decided to then drop that lane off, it's up to both lanes to help drivers move back to the main lane.
Where's the email to this guy? I'll email him.
As a courtesy I'll ask if I can pass along his email to you. Will DM you once I get the go ahead.
-----
On another note per Wikipedia, even zipper merges follow the same rules CPD told me.
"Most states in the United States require merging traffic to yield to through traffic which already exists in the lane they wish to enter. This further complicates the common understanding of proper merging protocol, as even though zipper merging is widely encouraged, those doing so are still legally required to yield, and those who choose not to let them merge are not doing anything wrong from a legal standpoint. Traffic already in the lane being merged into has the right of way over the merging traffic from the lane that will disappear."
Emailed the Traffic Safety Commander and they clarified the rules on merges.
Vehicles in lane 2 (lane that ends) are responsible for merging safely.
Drivers in lane 1 do not have to let others merge, it is only a courtesy. They have the right of way.
Same rules apply to highway entrance ramps.
Of course this is the case. I'm surprised so many of you thought otherwise.
Y'all never get annoyed if you're stuck in the not-ending lane and somebody zooms up the right lane and then scoots in at the intersection when the lane is right-turn only? For example, Airport Blvd heading toward the airport by 40.
Of course this is the case. I'm surprised so many of you thought otherwise.
Y'all never get annoyed if you're stuck in the not-ending lane and somebody zooms up the right lane and then scoots in at the intersection when the lane is right-turn only? For example, Airport Blvd heading toward the airport by 40.
Somewhat different, as that right lane on Airport Road NB at I-40 is a right-turn only lane to I-40 EB, so a driver in that lane scooting by others and then trying to squeeze in the thru lane would not be granted the same merge rights (under this law) as one in a lane that ended (such as the OP's description of the dual lefts from 55 to side roads in Cary.) So yes, I would be annoyed at them.
Of course this is the case. I'm surprised so many of you thought otherwise.
Y'all never get annoyed if you're stuck in the not-ending lane and somebody zooms up the right lane and then scoots in at the intersection when the lane is right-turn only? For example, Airport Blvd heading toward the airport by 40.
You're wrong. That's not the same thing. There are 2 equal turn lanes turning left. One abruptly ends, should do a zipper merge for cars that need to come back to the lane if they couldn't do it already.
It is ridiculous to think that an aggressive driver that doesn't want even just 1 more car ahead of them has the right of way. You want this area to turn into NOVA? Have at it then, genius.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
