Safe Speed Forums

I ran into a jam on the by-pass tonight. The two lanes narrowed into one. I'm a selfish person, so I drove in the fast lane, as far as I could, and then I tried to "butt in". But the people at the front of the queue got snarky. I had to go on those "hatched lines", and sort of force my way in - some of them blew their horns!

Anyway, I've worked out that such selfishness saves time. And (strange as it may seem) the more selfish you are, the more time you save, both for yourself and for everyone else. I'll write some simulation software to show this phenomenon soon, now that I know about it. But (basically) the lane which is closed off moves faster than the lane that isn't closed off. I've wondered about this for years, but now I have worked it out.

Is anyone else selfish for similar reasons? And why are the Brits so keen to queue?

If it benefits everyone (which as you say it does) then is it selfishness?

You are a martyr sir! Suffering the metaphorical slings and arrows of those that surround you, all for the greater good. One day your sacrifice will be truly appreciated, but probably not, alas, whilst you are still around to appreciate it...

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

"Zip-merging" at lane closures is now the recommended practice. You see more and more signs around the road network urging drivers to adopt this friendly and co-operative behaviour. You did know that, didn't you?

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

'Course he did!!! - it's just everyone else that didn't!

You know me - now that I know that it's "friendly and co-operative", I'll have to stop
doing it!

But why do British drivers need to be "encouraged" to be selfish? Why would they prefer to
queue?

There are more Machievellian posts in this thread than contributors!

My take: I am a peace-keeper on the roads.

I recognise that it is more efficient if, at the bottleneck and any other man-made bottlenecks by early merging, it is best if possble to keep laminar flow to get as many cars through the bottleneck per minute as reasonably practicable.

The fewer bottlenecks the better. One is minimum number, at or almost at the pinch point.

Zip-merging is the only sensible way to prevent further bottlenecks earlier in the stream (ie by merging at various points further back you get more bottlenecks).

HOWEVER... if, for WHATEVER reason, the convention of early merging (usually thanks to antiquated signage encouraging same) most folk have merged early...I tend to do so too. Why? Because it's better for me? No. Because it's better for overall progress? No - for reasons BW/AC is keeping up his sleeve, but has stated as his belief, and for reasons stated abobe (and elsewere), using up more of the tarmac to stack slow moving vehicles when approaching a pinch point (provided that the pinch point doesn't get slower - more later on that). I do it because it keeps blood boiling lower - and therefore on an even bigger picture, roads safer, at the expense of all the queueing cars behind having to wait a tad longer.

AC/BW zooms up the outside - but instead of letting him in, people closed up gaps and hung him out to dry - and he then had to force in, causing all sorts of turbulence and frayed tempers - and I guarantee several people further back to stop - more pinch points - even worse. Incidentally, I tend to let these folk in these days if I see them coming up - subtlely backing up just a tad - not grossly and overtly as that would pi$$ off the folk behind, although 30 years ago would have definitely closed ranks like the rest and really made the fastard wait - or force a gap further back - or hit me (yes, I drove bangers in those days and didn't care. How juvenile is that?!).

Zip-merging is best, both scientifically and psychologically.

Yes, that's exactly what happened. I was momentarily tempted to get out and be turbulent, but my hash-settling days are drawing to a close, sadly.



My simulation software (which remains vapour ware, until I get some clarity) suggests that, once you have pulled in, you make matters worse if you let more in. In fact, the (mental) calculation suggests that, once you have pulled over, the least selfish thing to do is the most selfish thing (!), i.e. let no more in. If everyone ALREADY in L1 let exactly one in from lane 2, and everyone who was in lane 2 let no-one else in, assuming both lanes carry the same volume originally, a sort of balance might be achieved. That is my expectation, anyway, although I'll have to write some queues to see it in action with my own eyes, so to speak.



But how can the Britons adapt? For centuries, Britons have been conditioned to queue in an orderly way. There is some evindece to suggest that more Britons died in the Titanic becase they formed orderly queues for the lifeboats while the yanks just piled in. Should we teach "selfishness" in schools? Mrs Thatcher would have approved of that, eh?!



I respect that. I am not one. I'm more of the "he who lives by the sword dies by the sword" sort of chap.

Fortunately, I seem to be gifted with a sort of "in head debugger" which means I can prototype and debug moderately complex software without actually writing any code!

As far as I can see you are absolutely correct. If every car in L1 lets 1 car from L2 in, but NO-ONE joining from L2 does so, then you will achieve equal flow in each lane, which gives the highest net flow AND the shortest queue, so clearly that is ideal behaviour.

There are two other extremes. One is that no-one in L1 lets anyone in, in which case L2 comes to a stand. Apart from leaving a batch of cars "hung out to dry" this actually clears itself, because as soon as L2 becomes slower than L1 it ceases to become attractive to join it, so you just end up with a long queue in L1. The other is that someone from L2 joins, then "repays the favour" by allowing someone else from L2 to overtake him and pull in. This is the worst possible case, as it reaches a ridiculous position where L1 will stop completely and only the cars that pull out and overtake will actually get anywhere.

The one common thread running in all 3 scenarios is that the selfish person benefits, as well as tending to exhibit the best "queue minimising" behaviour.

If I wrote the Highway Code, advice to people in a 2 lane queue would be:

1. Upon encountering the queue get in the fastest moving lane
2. When the head of the queue approaches, if in L1 allow ONE car from L2 to join ahead of you, but no more.
3. If in L2 look for a gap as late as you comfortably can, and once you've merged back to L1 don't allow anyone else in at any cost!

Blimey - all 3 are recommendations to be selfish! Didn't that mentally ill mathematician say something about this?

Oh, and my advice to highways agencies would be to lay out the merge so that L1 has to join L2, not the other way round. Solves the whole problem at a stroke... (run that one past your mental software simulator, BW!)

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

Well explained, JT. Could you now run the software on the situation where three lanes merge into one and determine whether this is best done by a single 3->1 or two 2->1 joints.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

Yes, Nash, Game Theory. Dawkins lays it out, as well.

You're a smart guy, JT. I don't want to be my own trumpeter, but I've
often thought of the "close lane 1" trick, as well. We all agree - this
is more than a theory - it's a mathematical fact. Selfishness pays off
sometimes. I'll throw this at RobinXe, the next time he says to me
"your attitude epitomises the height of selfishness"!

Can any action that directly or indirectly benefits large numbers of people properly be described as 'selfish'? As the definition of selfishness is behaviour that favours the individual above his community the answer must be no.

So selfishness remains a bad thing

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

That's only a possible definition of selfishness. Let us assume that a bloke considers some act that
would benefit him. Should he do it? Well, a selfish person is unlikely to do the act to _spite_ his community - he is more
likely to do it because of the benefit to himself. If the community is damaged, that would be a side-effect, not
the motivation.

So, the defintion of selfish then becomes:



I think that's more realistic. He basically couldn't give a hoot. Such a selfish person would always ride to the front of the queue - thus,
selfishness remains a possible good thing!

I'm afraid you're confusing selfish behaviour and selfish motivation.

Utilising all possible road space for as long as possible in these situations benefits everybody, as does considerate merging, and so these behaviours cannot possibly be described as selfish, even if the motivation behind adopting them is wholly self-serving. This is in stark contrast to wilfully impeding other drivers, and the two cannot possibly be sanely considered comparable.

I think you'll continue to have problems with your attitude towards driving as long as you continue to consider it a game, with a win state. Driving must be cooperation, not competition, if we are to achieve the ideal state that everyone completes their journey with an optimum level of safety and expediency.

_________________
Regulation without education merely creates more criminals.

Point conceded AC. That is the basis of Dawkin's 'selfish gene' concept.

_________________
When I see an adult on a bicycle, I do not despair for the future of the human race. H.G. Wells
When I see a youth in a motor car I do d.c.brown

i've often wondered why if zip merging is preferred they still insist on closing a specific lane..... much more ambiguous surely to put the hatching / cones to create a single lane between the original two, such that neither lane has an obvious 'right' of way ?

Driving can only be cooperative of everyone is being considerate of others, and cooperating towards attaining the same goal.
Since many are not (being cooperative or considerate) the whole idea goes out of the window.
Since a large percentage of society will not cooperate with others unless there is a distinct advantage FOR THEM PERSONALLY, you then have to think about your role in society.
Since those who do not, and will not , cooperate are frequently those with a larger slice of the social cake, the "role-model" is broken.

_________________
The world runs on oil, period. No other substance can compete when it comes to energy density, flexibility, ease of handling, ease of transportation. If oil didn’t exist we would have to invent it.”

56 years after it was decided it was needed, the Bedford Bypass is nearing completion. The last single carriageway length of it.We have the most photogenic mayor though, always being photographed doing nothing

A truly selfish person wouldn’t zip-merge, they would just follow the car in front and not let the driver beside in front of them – and that’s where it all falls down. Plain old common sense still trumps selfishness!

Selfishness is never a good thing (especially when interacting with others on roads where danger is one bad judgement away).

_________________
Views expressed are personal opinions and are not necessarily shared by the Safe Speed campaign

I'm on about selfish people, and the things selfish people do. In this case, a thing that a
selfish person would do is more helpful than the thing a person who is not selfish would do.



Do you mean a sort of "communism" on the roads? It's a novel idea, but why stop there?
Surely also any system would require cooperation, not competition. So why be a "road
socialist" when you could apply it to anything?

Well, I was as selfish as possible on Friday, because I wanted a pint. Yet it ended up as a sort of "imposed" zip merge, actually.

There's quite a bit of evidence that this is not true. For example, the survivors of the Titanic were those who got in the boats before the rest.