this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
179 points (96.9% liked)
Asklemmy
43966 readers
1297 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
Search asklemmy ๐
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I got into a debate about this with about four people a number of years ago. I was unable to convince them that merging at the merge point was more efficient. We all looked at each other like *wtf is wrong with your brain, how do you not understand this? * It's one of those things that so obvious to me but I don't know why - it's just the definition of 'chaos v. efficiency' in my head.
But if we look at the bottle neck point - the point where traffic must be 1 lane - as long as that is moving at the same rate what is the difference if cars merge sooner or later? We're still getting the same number of cars per minute through the 1 lane section of road.
If there is an alternate turnoff that is being blocked by the traffic then yes I can see it. Otherwise I don't see how it makes any difference.