If you are driving in Texas, trying to merge into bumper-to-bumper traffic, and there is a "yield" sign, you are legally required to just stay there until the traffic clears, which can be hours later.>Every Texan in a busy town commits a Class C Misdemeanor as a matter of necessityWell, why don't they actually stay for hours? Other drivers wave-in as a courtesy, at the not legally designated but customary center area of the merge lane - not too close to the start, and not at the end, otherwise you'll get no wave-in from the racemixing parents of whores Texas boomers. But that's actually not their legal right. In Texas, you actually are required by law to yield, regardless of the gestures of other drivers.To make it all even funnier, it's not actually legal to stop in the merge lane until you literally can't go farther. But that's not the common practice in Texas, in case you are wondering, no, nobody gets a ticket for stopping in the merge lane, ever. Again, you are to slow, but not stop, stopping isn't allowed here until you get to the end of that merge lane, it says it plainly.Yeah also nobody knows what "pose a hazard" means so don't try.Basically everywhere else has what is called zipper merge, which is a fancy term for "taking turns at the end of the merge lane".
>>537130487(cont)The relevant law of the antiracist feminist whoreloving kikeloving niggerloving faggotloving hinduloving catholicloving sodomites of Texas (an "operator" here is just a driver, it's supposed to sound more sophisticated than "driver", even though it says "intersection", that's just your usual merge from another road, which is where yield signs are found):(c)An operator approaching an intersection on a roadway controlled by a yield sign shall:(1)slow to a speed that is reasonable under the existing conditions; and(2)yield the right-of-way to a vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to be an immediate hazard to the operator's movement in or across the intersection.(d)If an operator is required by Subsection (c) to yield and is involved in a collision with a vehicle in an intersection after the operator drove past a yield sign without stopping, the collision is prima facie evidence that the operator failed to yield the right-of-way.
>>537130487Where the fuck do they put a yield sign like that though? I've never seen that before, and breaking that rule couldn't get you a ticket because cops can't get through the traffic you stupid fuck... Quit being a retarded NPC>
>>537130579It's always there :^) that fucking bitch
>>537130579>breaking that rule couldn't get you a ticketquick point on that.police rarely know much law. some do, it's true. But most are basically ignorant.
You will notice the retarded racemixing niggerloving antiracist sodomite kikelovers of Texas have nothing to say about this.
Well, except for the retard who never even saw the yield sign that's at every intersection merge.
We live in a multicultural and therefore post-law society now. You can actually do whatever you want. If a cop actually stops you for that, which is very unlikely, then that's a new interaction you will have to deal with. Since Texas is majority non-White now, you should consider learning about bribes, they are how brown countries operate.
I'm with the Texas department of transportation. Jose you got a ticket for erratic driving and the officer gave you multiple opportunities to de-escalate because he was aware of your prior felonies. Next time, follow the rules of the road.
>>537132725I didn't get a ticket. I looked up the law.Here's the plan:1. use a dashcam at all times, which records speed and location and time date stamp in hardsubs ****2. STOP at the yield sign, every time (to take care of (d))3. move forward at 5mph*4. ignore all people waving you in, and unless there is an enormous gap, don't take advantage of it5. stopping behind traffic as necessary, continue until the point of zipper merge6. poke your nose into whatever gap you can, where the person you are cutting off is STOPPED, accelerating HARD AND FAST but under control ie don't hit them, so it's like fast-stop (pause) fast-stop etc** ***7. smile and nod, but never wave or gesture at the road ragers (gestures can be misinterpreted by the niggers of the niggerlover courts)8. gradually, you have zipper merged Texas style* since the language requires slowing, and this is speeding up from a stop, 5mph can't transgress.** this doesn't transgress the "immediate hazard" rule - immediate means nothing mediates, ie no time to pick your nose or eat a sandwich or wipe your snot on the sandwich and eat the sandwich or stick a hairbrush in your fake rotting vagina you disgusting transvestite*** it's not a lane, legally, but an intersection, so TRANSP ยง 545.060 does not apply**** 4k. even if you have a Tesla or whatever, get a real dashcam, you want to have 4k quality.
>>537132716>If a cop actually stops you for thatcops don't know the law. Nobody gets a ticket for that, for whatever reason.What people do is there's a social expectation that you should move towards the center of the "merge lane", then wait to get waived in. You kind of go to the idk like 33% remaining line, then others leave a gap behind that like depending on the traffic's intensity. It's totally illegal.Well, a class C misdemeanor. that's because you didn't go all the way to the end before the second stop.It can be pretty confusing, because the law is written in reverse order.step 1: optionally stop at the yield sign. it's advisable, thoughstep 2: if you didn't stop, you need to slow down. The amount to slow is pretty ambiguous. Since it's up to a jury or other kikelover niggerlover sodomite, you'd best just do it about like everyone else does it. I prefer not doing this, you can see why, I prefer to have stopped.step 3: you're supposed to continue at the slow speed on down to the end of the "merge lane" if you can't find an extraordinarily generous merge gapstep 4: since nobody has let you in (they won't, because if you don't stop and wait for someone to gesture, they never leave a gap), you will now be at the zipper merge location, the good old end of the "merge lane"step 5: wait until traffic clears (it doesn't, it will be backed up for hours)behold the genius of the kikelover niggerlover sodomite law.
>>537130487Car Slave issue.
>>537134188We're all government-made road slaves, though. Whatever they make we have to take.In the UK there's a severe lack of protection for cyclists. We don't have that problem in Texas, since the cyclists have been bullied out of existence.
1pid scum!
dude what
yield doesn't mean "never go until someone waves you in"it just means yieldsafely merging is yielding, you'll know you didn't yield properly if you hear a crunch
bump
>>537135541yeah so like you know how you have to merge sometimes?Like the lane ends?Well, sometimes that just happens on a freeway, that's not what I mean.The ones where like you're on one highway or street, and then you are turning to get on another one, only it's a merge lane instead of like a stop light or stop sign.so you have a lane to merge.but actually in Texas they always put a "yield" sign right at the start of the merge lane.legally, I know this is crazy, it's called an "intersection" even though it looks like a lane merging into a highway.
>>537135667>yield the right-of-wayit means not only do you wait until the coast is clear, it means that you are not allowed to accept a wave-in. That's a class C misdemeanor you are committing, mr "lawful" kikeloving sodomite.
>>537135689ty you are a gentleman and wise beyond your years.
meds
>>537135954eh, idk. yeah ok they can be white, I guess. But only if they wear a gold chain.
I figure gold is like a +100 whiteness buff per oz.
>>537135854neat, always wanted to have the wisdom of the dead>>537130487>you are to slow, but not stop, stopping isn't allowed here until you get to the end of that merge lane, it says it plainly.so does everyone just slow to a crawl at the beginning of the merge lane
>>537135821if you can successfully zipper merge then "the coast is clear"nobody looks at a zipper merge and exclaims "those hooligans didn't yield!"again if you have statutory evidence go ahead and prove me wrong
>>537136156>so does everyone just slow to a crawl at the beginning of the merge laneNo, people just come to a stop at about the 30% to the end of the merge lane. Thereabouts. some earlier, some later. They stop and wait to be waved in. I didn't bother explaining why this receives highly varied results because it would descend into the usual "you are brown" sort of discussion, when in reality if you are non-white you get let in more often than if white, because Texas is full of niggerlover sodomites. Basically, what you and your car looks like, and the social tendencies of the area, determine your experience. This is similar to how extremely handsome men tend to think women are all nice.
>>537136166Honestly, why should I even talk to you? You admitted to willful disobedience of the law. It's shocking how brazen you are about it."the coast is clear" is not a zipper merge. "the coast is clear" in Texas lingo means basically there are no cars there. It implies desolation, basically.
>>537136475huhit's be interesting to run a study on the potential effects of this system on auto evolution in the arealike, say for instance someone with hydraulics gets waved in, while someone without doesn't; do more cars start having hydraulics?what about novelty horns playing la cucaracha
>>537136630It may be that non-grayscale cars evoke memory of prior incidents, and therefore rude driving towards them, creating a feedback loop.
>>537137061wonder if that increases or decreases peacocking
>>537136588if it was wilful and brazen it wouldn't be accompanied by an argument that the law is actually different than your interpretation.your reaction was histrionic and uncalled for. I expect an apology and a proper consideration of my response.
>>537137182Peacocking is a necessary action, of course, because women don't open dialog with any but the smallest percent of males. It's not a good system, but arranged marriages aren't making a comeback soon, despite people being alleged Christians.
>burgers on the road
reddit tier post. go back
>>537137305>Sec. 542.301. GENERAL OFFENSE. (a) A person commits an offense if the person performs an act prohibited or fails to perform an act required by this subtitle.>(b) Except as otherwise provided, an offense under this subtitle is a misdemeanor.What now, CRIMINAL?
>>537137679You sound like someone who is a violator of the LAW, a CRIMINAL.
>>537130487Not sure how the concept of a 'merge point' and a 'zipper merge' at that merge point is too complex for mexicans to understand.
>>537137687now you withdraw tour baseless slander and apologize. obviously I am not advocating criminality when I argue that certain behavior is NOT criminal. that was stupid and made discourse impossible.then perhaps we discuss the fact that successful zipper merge necessarily implies "the coast is clear" because you didn't hit anything.while your substituted standard, "desolation," has no statutory support.
>>537137923On the discernment of God, I know you are a criminal, you have violated the law, wrongdoer.
>>537137836In other states, and most white places, it's just the law to zipper merge, basically end of discussion.
>>537138574you're not just slandering me, you're also knowingly misinforming people about the law in a way that's calculated to cause fatal traffic accidentscriminal scum
>>537139467>(c)An operator approaching an intersection on a roadway controlled by a yield sign shall:>(1)slow to a speed that is reasonable under the existing conditions; and>(2)yield the right-of-way to a vehicle in the intersection or approaching on another highway so closely as to be an immediate hazard to the operator's movement in or across the intersection.>(d)If an operator is required by Subsection (c) to yield and is involved in a collision with a vehicle in an intersection after the operator drove past a yield sign without stopping, the collision is prima facie evidence that the operator failed to yield the right-of-way.Learn to read, you sodomite.
>>537139543>so closely as to be an immediate hazardclearly this is not describing a zipper merge.you can safely yield and zipper merge while not causing an immediate hazard, these are compatible actions under the law.your substituted standard of "desolation" is unreasonable, impractical, and does not show up in the ststatutes.we've determined conclusively that you are a criminal and slanderer, not me. do the right thing and turn yourself in before it's too late.
>mfw this entire thread
>>537139964>i ask igboapparently the answer is>Ana m aju
>>537139876>clearly this is not describing a zipper merge.I know.This is Texas law.Texas law does NOT have the zipper merge.criminal SCUM
I don't think that lawbreaker will bother showing his face again.
>>537131660Then there's a pretty good chance they won't even know that that's the law and they could ticket you for it.
>>537141127cops are all the same in the same way as women are all the same.
in traffic, laws dont matter
>
>>537140258>>537140768I guess you'll have to stay wrongsorry about your learning disabilitybump for OP humiliation
>>537142338I'm a logician, and you have presented no arguments.Typical dangerous murderous antiracist sodomite trash.
Bumparoo
>>537143057thank you!!!
>>537130487yield sign in tx doesn't mean stop in most of usa it does
>>537142471incorrectsorry about your learning disabilitybump for OP humiliation
>>537143855UNTRUE!!!!have a look!!!!>>537130511>(d)If an operator is required by Subsection (c) to yield and is involved in a collision with a vehicle in an intersection after the operator drove past a yield sign without stopping, the collision is prima facie evidence that the operator failed to yield the right-of-way.
>>537143962I already corrected your misinterpretation of this statute but you were too retarded to learn anythinghere, if you want to try again: >>537139876
>>537143953You are inarticulate, so, I assume you are a NIGGER.
>>537144032evidently you were just projecting here
>>537144022Ok fine. I'll be nice. But you don't know what the zipper merge is. It's the legally enforced alternate yielding of the merge lane and the lane you're merging into.
>>537143962i got my license in tx yield in tx means to slow and look carefulyin rest of usa yield means stopi know this because i almost died from it
>>537144250so like you're right about how it goes, like what people do. But that's not the law. The law is here:>>537130511It's actually illegal to merge the way everyone does, in this situation.
>>537130487>Yields on Texas highwayanon...
>>537144109incorrect, zipper merge is NOT defined in TX law as "alternate yielding"a clean zipper merge can result from alternate yielding, but it can also result from one merging lane yielding to the other, as long as the merging lane does not approach "so closely as to be an immediate hazard to the operator's movement in or across the intersection."this does not mean the yielding lane must atop until there is "desolation" in the non-yielding lane. a simple reading and logical analysis of the statue will prove that my interpretation is right, while yours is a post-hoc invention of your own mind. because you influenced people to break the law with your misinformation, even if it was caused by your ignorance, I think you should be more thoughtful in the future before jumping to conclusions contrary to the law like you did today, and before slandering the only people who want to talk to you and teach you.
>>537144509One weird thing about you boomers is you assume that the law backs your habits up. The constant assumption that you're in the right, no matter the fact the only evidence you have is other people are just like you.
>>537144375ARE LIKE 99% OF 4CHAN POSTERS ON DRUGS?FFSHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHU RSTUPID
>>537144547>incorrect, zipper merge is NOT defined in TX law as "alternate yielding"Texas doesn't have a zipper merge. The law has no knowledge of it, though txdot knows.
>>537144622I'm a logician, and you're retarded. I can see why it is a difficult experience. Whatever you do, don't kiss the lady of the lake.
>>537144619no sense of irony kek>>537144653well I tried (again), sorry about your learning disability anonbump
>>537144713every poster here is weed bro weedwhat a boring website for losers
>>537130487The primary purpose of that law isn't for the police to write (You) a ticket, it's to put the blame on (You) if an accident happens.
>>537144941>>537144979^ spicsNote the lack of arguments.
>>537145094evidently you were just projecting here lol
>>537145070I agree. Here's the game plan:>>537134006
>>537145132this nigger learning how to drive in 2026
I am sorry, sir, I must report no argument was detected.
>>537130487>>537132026Texanon hereNo idea what your problem is. Just merge when you conveniently can as you approach the actual end of the merge lane. Otherwise you zipper at the end of the merge lane if traffic is fully stopped.Why are you confused?
>>537145717he's buthurt that he's is to blame if nobody lets him in and he runs into people, and he's barracks lawyering himself into jail like sovereign citizens gold braided flags
>>537130487The highways in texas are bigger than texas
>>537145887yeah (actual pic)
>>537145717technically zipper merge is when the yield obligation alternates at the end of the merge lane, between the merging traffic and the one they're merging onto. They become lawfully equals and are required to take turns.You are right that sometimes it's not a problem. But, in some places, bumper-to-bumper traffic totally eliminates the type of conditions the law assumes will emerge - that is, an open spot. The way it puts it is you can't pose an "imminent hazard". It's vague, there is like a practice but it's up to the feelings of whichever sodomites are deciding, and it's always sodomites.waving-in isn't legitimate. You're breaking the law if you don't yield to the waving driver. the wave doesn't make it legal to merge there.The sequence the law gives is actually best to follow, so you understand what the law says:>>537134006this is my summary, and I believe it to be accurate, having read the law this morning.
>>537146087>when the yield obligation alternatesI tried to teach you why this was wrong but you were too learning disabled, you'll have to stay wrong forever
>>537146006I'm not sure those actually apply here. the onramps off of the side roads of the Katy freeway thingy don't seem to say "yield". Instead, the pavement says "only" and then there's an arrow. You know, do the "only". Are you onlying?
>>537146006Just one more lane bro, just one more. I swear, just one more lane will fix everything bro, please.
>>537146087i remember when i was a baby in texas my parents telling me stories of retards who crashed at the end of a merge lane or stood there scared for ten minutes or slammed their brakes and got stuck at the end of merge lane trying to merge it was commonly happening back in the 1980s glad to hear nothing has chaingedi hope this boring story of my life makes you feel properly retarded
>>537146334fine, it's not actual zipper merging if you don't have the legal right to do it.ai gemini freeStates Where It Is (or Is Becoming) LawA few states have passed specific legislation to legally enforce alternating merging at congested bottlenecks:Utah: Under Utah Traffic Code 41-6a-903.1, drivers are legally required to use the zipper method and alternate at congested merge points.Illinois: Passed a law in 2020 allowing the state to officially mandate zipper merging and post enforceable "Take Turns" signage in designated work zones.Other Early Adopters: States like Minnesota, Missouri, Kansas, and Washington have modified their traffic manuals or rules to legally protect or mandate the practice under specific congested conditions.
>>537146568In their defense, it's full of indians.
>>537145835it's much worse!!!!!!!You are a criminal!That's the amazing thing, you don't know it!!!You are failing to yield, they have right of way, you are required to yield, and if you didn't stop at the yield sign (you did notice it back there, didn't you???), you are assumed guilty.
>>537146087If people are being stupid you put your nose into the lane and if they hit you, the cops will definitely write them the ticket. Since they're hitting you from the side-rear, they're assumed at fault unless they can prove you did something grossly negligent like a brake check. This is a non-issue.
Holy fucking shit. Seek help. Sincerely, fellow Texan
>>537146006>>537146534just checked. Those are even worse:>On a roadway divided into three or more lanes and providing for one-way movement of traffic, an operator entering a lane of traffic from a lane to the right shall yield the right-of-way to a vehicle entering the same lane of traffic from a lane to the left.you are required to wait for all of rush hour to end before getting on, literally.
>>537147559^ a race traitorhby confess your sins, sodomite?>>537147352nah man, with yield sign merges the yield side always loses (with the trick outlined above). But for merges from the right into the left, where there is no yield sign, it's considered a regular lane (and not an intersection), so the one in the right lane is always the loser.see>>537147871
