I remember a large argument on the MSU board a while back where the thread got into a debate about traffic merging.
AKA, which is better, the "zipper" method where the two lanes merge at the point where the lane ends, or do you attempt to get over as early as possible so as to avoid a crunch at the end where someone is forced to cut someone off and cause all traffic to suddenly come to a near stop (but at the same time, not using the ending lane to its full capacity)
There have been studies that say that the zipper method is the better way, but I highly doubt that because of the same argument as above.
The zipper method is akin to Communism. In an ideal system, it would work really well. Especially if people aren't greedy, selfish aholes.
Newsflash: alot of people are greedy, selfish aholes.
IF people leave a gap in front of them (instead of riding the bumper), and
IF people fill in the gaps near the end when available and don't wait until the very last second to pull over,
THEN the zipper method works well.
My route home from work that I drive every day has a merge point. I generally try to get over earlier and leave a gap. It chaps my ass to no end to see, EVERY. SINGLE. DAY., cars that are flying up the ending lane, within 30' to 40' before the lane ends, just blithely fly past the open spot and then force themselves over at the last second.
I don't think that I would ever truly succumb to road rage, but seeing people who have merged already, and then pull out to jump into the ending lane, just so that they can move forward about 10 car lengths, comes really close to my definition of justifiable homicide.