Highway merging rant

[mielock]

I guess I’ll never stop being amazed how most people merge onto highways from on-ramps. It practically never fails – here I am almost exclusively in the right hand lane, where I’m legally supposed to be pulling @ 60 mph, approaching an on-ramp, watching the cars coming about to merge and they aren’t looking at my slow-going 50 feet + mass taking up the very lane they wish to occupy until they are in the shadow of my rig. What to do? Well, you could easily step on this thing called the accelerator and take advantage of the several hundred feet left of your merge lane and be on your merry way (believe me, there is ALWAYS space ahead of me when you drive at my speed), but no, you must slam on your brakes (creating a dangerous situation with others trying to merge) and go all the way around me eventually passing me up on left hand side. Oh, by the way, it’s almost always impossible for me to simply “move over” to the other lane, clearing the way for these merging folks.

When I’m merging while not pulling, you better believe I’m scoping the traffic flow and if I see some honking semi or RV rig moving along in my merge lane, I’m making sure I’m positioned in a way that will benefit me and avoid being stuck broadside with these type of vehicles.

Now look – I know there are times when traffic is bad enough this method is not possible. And yes, I know there are some without the flexibility in their necks to allow this “look over the shoulder”. These situations are exempt. But I’m not talking about these! I’m talking about 80% of the people merging onto the highways when traffic allows them to completely avoid this. It happens time and time and time again, over and over.

Considering most everyone reading this pulls something or operates a large vehicle - you MUST see the same thing I’m expressing here…

[DiskDoctr]

2oldman wrote:
A good argument for computer-driven vehicles.

Don't forget, you need to keep a couple of backups handy, you don't know when, but you're pretty much assured your software will CRASH at some point!

Or hiccup mid-task while it decides to 'update' itself instead of performing the task you desire at the time.

Would certainly give a more ominous meaning to Blue Screen Of Death 😉

Oh, and you'll need a complete overhaul every 3 months or so, and completely replace your car at least every 2 or 3 years as they 'upgrade' the driving protocols and anything older will instantly crash and destroy its contents!

Computers are certainly capable of driving themselves, but corporations have very little concern about making and testing stable code. Ask me how many times my 'smart tv' has rebooted 😉

[BurbMan]

Think about driverless cars....taking all the emotion out of driving and letting the computers do it. No fender benders (well many fewer anyway), no more citizens lost to DUI, no more traffic jams as computers can pace the cars perfectly. No more rubbernecking at an accident. Cab fares half what they are now. No worries about texting while driving.

Driving enthusiasts will always like to drive, RVers will still explore the open road, but folks that have to commute in crowded conditions can let the computer do it.

I love to drive probably more than most, but man when I was commuting 90 mins each way from Long Island to White Plains and back every day, I would have paid big $$ for a driverless car!

[tegu69]

I wonder how Google programs the car to merge or not merge. Did anyone ever notice the diagrams on page two. Cars are on left side of road.

[wny_pat1]

beemerphile1 wrote:


Google has a driverless camera car here in the USA.

The future is coming. Also if the car is driving itself there will be no need for a LEO pulling it over, it won't speed or make illegal turns.

. I like that statement, but now I'm waiting for the headlines. I'm almost certain that some LEO will attempt it.

[wny_pat1]

ScottG wrote:

korbe wrote:
What I find interesting is when I do move over to the fast lane to allow easier merging, these same people I moved over for, don't let me get back into the slow lane....

How true and this is why I don't usually move over except for professional truckers (who know how to drive).

And they are getting far and few in between! About half of them refuse to speak any English, which is a requirement of the CDL that they must be able to!!

[MitchF150]

The other thing that gets me is when these "merging challenged" people attempt to merge is that they also don't feel it necessary to put on their turn signal to let me know what their intentions are....

Especially when they are pacing me and not moving ahead of me or behind me.. I simply maintain my speed so they can decide what they are going to do next...

Of course, they will use their signal when they want to change lanes...

Ugh...

Mitch

[beemerphile1]

FWIW there are autodrive/driverless cars on the road right now. You cannot buy one but might share the road with one.

I know Mercedes is currently running driverless cars in Germany on public roads for testing.

Google has a driverless camera car here in the USA.

The future is coming. Also if the car is driving itself there will be no need for a LEO pulling it over, it won't speed or make illegal turns.

[2oldman]

Cloud Dancer wrote:
Will a computer driver know when/how to pull over whenever a cop wants to stop the vehicle for a failed tail light?

Would computer-driven cars drop the highway fatality rate to almost nothing?

[rhagfo]

I also see merging as a TEAM Sport! When I am in the right lane I am watching the on ramps for cars coming on the road, then either hold my pace, or speed up or back off, mostly hold or speed up.

When I am merging I am hard of the throttle glancing in the mirror for a likely opening, then adjust either slow or speed up.

I agree with a TAP of the horn, if the merger doesn't seem to be paying attention to the job at hand.

[Cloud_Dancer]

Will a computer driver know when/how to pull over whenever a cop wants to stop the vehicle for a failed tail light?
Municipalities will still want to issue tickets you know,....driverless or not. Will a computer go to court to argue the case?
I can see I'm going to have a lot fun with these high-tech artificial-intelligence drivers.
Actually, these vehicles will require a human crew member who will need to constantly monitor the computers. And, this person will need to be smarter than the computers.
IMO we're just going to make more problems, not solve the ones we have. Oh yeah, and purchasing/operating cars will cost much more than today's cost.
I love my GMC.

[2oldman]

mlts22 wrote:
human drivers can't even understand a four way stop sign..

Especially when one of them is on the phone.

[2oldman]

Terryallan wrote:
Bottom line. NEVER trust a machine

If you're looking for perfection, then I guess that statement applies.

[shakyjay]

Terryallan wrote:

2oldman wrote:

Terryallan wrote:
IF you had ever ran machines that are ran by computers. You wouldn't say that

What kind of machines (and when) are you talking about?

The vehicle you drive right now is 'ran' by computer.

But not driven by computer, and the machines I run, are state of the art. Some even prototypes, And they all have a mind of their own. I would not trust a computer to drive me down the road. They don't always do whet you tell them to.

They do things they aren't supposed to, and when they do. The designers tell you. It cannot do that. But it did.

People don't always do what you tell them to do. While computers may not do what you expect them to do, they are only capable of doing what they are told. Ultimately it is or was a human who provided the instructions. They have no mind of their own, whatever mind they have is what is provided to them via human instruction.

[mlts22]

After reading this thread, I have two takeaways:

1: I want a computer driven car. I also would like roads that are autopilot only. An expressway could meet another expressway at a four way intersection, and the cars would automatically time who goes when without much, if any slowdown. Human drivers can't even understand a four way stop sign.

2: I am going to buy a drivecam for my other vehicle.

[Terryallan]

2oldman wrote:

Terryallan wrote:
They do things they aren't supposed to, and when they do. The designers tell you. It cannot do that. But it did.

Robots do a pretty good job of building a car. They do a pretty good job of most everything, including running the internet. 99.99% of the time it's the human programmer who screws up.

If it's better to keep allowing people to be stupid, dangerous drivers until computers are 100% error-free, then I wish us well.

Bottom line. NEVER trust a machine