[Bill14564]

Originally Posted by Mortal1

I completely disagree with merging where the lanes merge as it creates exactly what the original poster claims to be better. When people merge when first seeing the signs where a lane will be ending then they move through the effected area faster. When people wait till they have to merge you see those in the proper lane having to slow down or stop to let those people in....this is in fact what causes the major backup miles from the lane ending.

People who drive to where you have to move into that lane are hoping not to wait as long to get through the area. That is the reason why they put the "lane ends" sign up so far back...to give folks a chance before it becomes imperative to move. They are just like line cutters at any register or ticket booth.

If trying to justify your behavior why not check with department of transportation like I have and get the truth and not what fits your reasoning?

Good advice to do some research. Colorado, Minnesota, and Virginia all say using both lanes and zippering at the end is more efficient. There is a statement in one of the articles that Germany feels this way too though I didn't look for an official German statement.

Interesting that you mention the "lane ends" signs - both the Colorado and Minnesota articles mention changing the signage to discourage the early merging you seem to be defending.

Which DOT sites did you find in your research that say the opposite? Please provide links and not just assertions.