Idiots straddling lanes on a merge

[miniman]

Motorrad said:

a. been queueing longer than someone else and therefore won't allow them to merge

Driving an ageing and battered large BMW has its benefits in this regard - these folks usually decide that their glossy new paintwork will simply blend into the plethora of scrapes and scuffs on my bumper and that they might do well to give up.

[Timberwolf]

I actually have a completely different pet hate with merging.

It's the people who merge normally, or sit in their lane for several hundred yards, or barge in at the last possible moment having done a few dozen yards on hatched lines/opposite side of the road/grass, and then, having done whatever their thing for merge points is and finally settled down into the single lane section... brake hard.

You can imagine what this causes, right?

Complete and total chaos behind. Each driver notices the stoppage in front at a slightly different time and you go from having a set of cars all moving at roughly the same speed (a trivial merging problem) to a set of cars all moving at wildly different speeds and rates of acceleration. (A decidedly non-trivial merging problem.)

I also reserve a special, deep and vitriolic pit of loathing for whoever in the town/district/county council saw fit to put a set of traffic lights in Camberley, about a dozen yards after a point where two lanes merge - additional irritation factor aside, well done on putting something to stop cars in a place where the average driver's attention is going to be on the vehicles beside and behind them, that's some top safety thinking there.

[Colonial]

I have 3 of these on the drive to work.

Australian drivers are amongst the worst in the world so don't get the simple concept.

Everyone moves into the lane that continues about 500m before it ends and sits there in a traffic jam. I'm usually getting glared at because I have the audacity to use the entire length of the lane.

Bizzare.

[109 Bob]

I think these signs should be used far more often. If that was the case then the idiots might eventually get the hang of it.

[Flibble]

I dunno bob - I've driven past similar signs accompanied by roughly 1 mile of queued traffic in lane 1 and a completely empty lane 2. People seem determined not to merge properly and I have absolutely no idea why.

[turbobloke]

Flibble said:

I dunno bob - I've driven past similar signs accompanied by roughly 1 mile of queued traffic in lane 1 and a completely empty lane 2. People seem determined not to merge properly and I have absolutely no idea why.

Sheeple with cars in gear and brains in neutral.

[philthy]

flemke said:

Getragdogleg said:

This is a debate I can see both sides of because I drive both cars and trucks.

On the one hand the idea of "zip" merging is a good one, it uses up the available road space and reduces tailbacks, it does not reduce the amount of traffic but it manages it better. A long clear lane in front of someone who is lane blocking is stupid, its a waste of space.

On the other hand "zip" merging NEVER works. you alaways get one fool who will not let the person merge or you get a person who lets 5 people merge and both these action cause frustration, factor in a really pushy cock and its all very interesting on a hot day.

The view from inside my cab on a motorway that is funnelling down into a single lane is that the only reason the outside lane has less vehicles in it is the majority of people have read and understood the big red signs in the previous few miles and moved over to the lane that is staying open, the people who remain out until the last minute and then try to cut in front of more organised motorists are the problem. the traffic flow is then disrupted while the brakes are applied to allow the merging, this few seconds converts into a full stop~start furtherback the line, while the traffic is stopped and the outer lane is fairly free more impatient folk speed up it to try to merge further up the queue, folk then get out of line to overtake and more delays for more merging occur. Result, poor flow.

The trucks that run together to block the late overtakers have a perfect view ahead of the traffic thinning and starting to flow again, the lanes have no need to merge and so the queue moves freely until the double lanes of traffic behind the trucks snaggle it up again.

Zip merging does not work because of the fact that humans are involved, take the hint and read the signs, slow up and join the lane that is staying open early. your passage through WILL be quicker.


ETA: I will say that most of this post is based on a roadworks scenario, not poorly planned local roads where people act like fools for no reason.

I've read hundreds of PH posts on this subject, and yours is by far the best expressed and reasoned.

I was just going to post a similar comment.
Your reasoning is sound, however, I doubt it will get through to many who just rush to the head of the queue and then force themselves in.

[Motorrad]

philthy said:

I was just going to post a similar comment.
Your reasoning is sound, however, I doubt it will get through to many who just rush to the head of the queue and then force themselves in.

Your response is the part of the problem.

There is no 'queue' in the traditional social sense, just road surface to be used by cars. If everyone used both lanes without merging too early the overall traffic flow would be better.

The only reason people have to 'force themselves in' is because idiots in the open lane have this bizarre 'I've been waiting longer mentality'. The only reason they've been waiting longer is because they joined the fecking queue they are creating. The only reason you get a situation where aggressive wkers cut in at high speed in a do or die maneuver is because the rest of you are enabling them to do that by leaving a whole load of road space free.

If everyone just picked a lane then zip merged in turn with no animosity more of the road would be used and both queues would be shorter. That's just plain common sense and it amazes me people cannot see it.

Personally I find I never have a problem merging as I will trickle along in the lane with less traffic and then blend at the appropriate time/let others in near the bottleneck.

Edited by Motorrad on Tuesday 2nd June 13:12

[flemke]

Motorrad said:

philthy said:

I was just going to post a similar comment.
Your reasoning is sound, however, I doubt it will get through to many who just rush to the head of the queue and then force themselves in.

Your response is the part of the problem.

There is no 'queue' in the traditional social sense, just road surface to be used by cars. If everyone used both lanes without merging too early the overall traffic flow would be better.

The only reason people have to 'force themselves in' is because idiots in the open lane have this bizarre 'I've been waiting longer mentality'. The only reason they've been waiting longer is because they joined the fecking queue they are creating. The only reason you get a situation where aggressive wkers cut in at high speed in a do or die maneuver is because the rest of you are enabling them to do that by leaving a whole load of road space free.

If everyone just picked a lane then zip merged in turn with no animosity more of the road would be used and both queues would be shorter. That's just plain common sense and it amazes me people cannot see it.

Personally I find I never have a problem merging as I will trickle along in the lane with less traffic and then blend at the appropriate time/let others in near the bottleneck.

The problem is with the big "ifs" in your summary.
If you can slot smoothly from the outside lane into the nearside one because there is a natural space available in the nearside, then fine, great, good roadcraft.
If, however, you can only get over to the nearside because another driver who got there before you, and who then joined the back of the queue because he recognised that there were not going to be any natural spaces available, has kindly conceded his priority to you, then that's not so good.
Often here on PH (I don't mean to apply this to you, as I'm unfamiliar with your previous), people who seem to consider themselves to be advanced drivers have confused what ought to be with what is. They go from that confusion to asserting that, because the others ought to have zipped, they themselves are right to drive all the way up the offside bacause that would have been right if the others were zipping.

[walm]

flemke said:

Motorrad said:

philthy said:

I was just going to post a similar comment.
Your reasoning is sound, however, I doubt it will get through to many who just rush to the head of the queue and then force themselves in.

Your response is the part of the problem.

There is no 'queue' in the traditional social sense, just road surface to be used by cars. If everyone used both lanes without merging too early the overall traffic flow would be better.

The only reason people have to 'force themselves in' is because idiots in the open lane have this bizarre 'I've been waiting longer mentality'. The only reason they've been waiting longer is because they joined the fecking queue they are creating. The only reason you get a situation where aggressive wkers cut in at high speed in a do or die maneuver is because the rest of you are enabling them to do that by leaving a whole load of road space free.

If everyone just picked a lane then zip merged in turn with no animosity more of the road would be used and both queues would be shorter. That's just plain common sense and it amazes me people cannot see it.

Personally I find I never have a problem merging as I will trickle along in the lane with less traffic and then blend at the appropriate time/let others in near the bottleneck.

The problem is with the big "ifs" in your summary.
If you can slot smoothly from the outside lane into the nearside one because there is a natural space available in the nearside, then fine, great, good roadcraft.
If, however, you can only get over to the nearside because another driver who got there before you, and who then joined the back of the queue because he recognised that there were not going to be any natural spaces available, has kindly conceded his priority to you, then that's not so good.
Often here on PH (I don't mean to apply this to you, as I'm unfamiliar with your previous), people who seem to consider themselves to be advanced drivers have confused what ought to be with what is. They go from that confusion to asserting that, because the others ought to have zipped, they themselves are right to drive all the way up the offside bacause that would have been right if the others were zipping.

This sums it up nicely flemke.
We know that everyone SHOULD zip, but they don't.
So we then have a choice about whether to zip ourselves.
The question is which method makes for smoother flow given the persistent muppetry from those not zipping.

YOU CAN'T EDUCATE THEM - JUST SMOOTH THE FLOW.
The more self-righteous, i.e. me, try to zip, particularly if those signs are up.
But you can do it in a very non-aggressive smooth way.
My benchmark is to drive slowly past the queue (not aggressively) trying to find a natural slot opening up somewhere close to the obstruction, at least when I have sight of it.
I then merge naturally, without requiring someone to "let me in".

[flemke]

walm said:

This sums it up nicely flemke.
We know that everyone SHOULD zip, but they don't.
So we then have a choice about whether to zip ourselves.
The question is which method makes for smoother flow given the persistent muppetry from those not zipping.

YOU CAN'T EDUCATE THEM - JUST SMOOTH THE FLOW.
The more self-righteous, i.e. me, try to zip, particularly if those signs are up.
But you can do it in a very non-aggressive smooth way.
My benchmark is to drive slowly past the queue (not aggressively) trying to find a natural slot opening up somewhere close to the obstruction, at least when I have sight of it.
I then merge naturally, without requiring someone to "let me in".

In its own trivial way, it's an interesting problem. You can run up the offside in the hope that there will be a natural space, but often you cannot be absolutely certain beforehand that there will be a space. If a space should materialise, then you probably have done the right thing, although it's possible that you did the wrong thing but got lucky. If there's no space, however, then there's a strong likelihood that you've done the wrong thing.

[walm]

flemke said:

walm said:

This sums it up nicely flemke.
We know that everyone SHOULD zip, but they don't.
So we then have a choice about whether to zip ourselves.
The question is which method makes for smoother flow given the persistent muppetry from those not zipping.

YOU CAN'T EDUCATE THEM - JUST SMOOTH THE FLOW.
The more self-righteous, i.e. me, try to zip, particularly if those signs are up.
But you can do it in a very non-aggressive smooth way.
My benchmark is to drive slowly past the queue (not aggressively) trying to find a natural slot opening up somewhere close to the obstruction, at least when I have sight of it.
I then merge naturally, without requiring someone to "let me in".

In its own trivial way, it's an interesting problem. You can run up the offside in the hope that there will be a natural space, but often you cannot be absolutely certain beforehand that there will be a space. If a space should materialise, then you probably have done the right thing, although it's possible that you did the wrong thing but got lucky. If there's no space, however, then there's a strong likelihood that you've done the wrong thing.

I couldn't agree more.
I just like to live life on the edge (in my 1.8l estate car).

[Targarama]

Not quite the same, but a classic example of the average non-enthusiast driver was on Police Stop recently (seen it a few times in various Police Stop stylee repeats too). Lady coming out of Bluewater shopping centre in a small hatchback, either on phone or no seatbelt - can't recall which. Police give her a tug and a telling off. Then proceed to try and explain she had used the wrong lane. She simply did not get what they were saying, even after them pointing at cars driving this stretch correctly. The Police gave up trying to explain and sent her on her way. If they can't get the message across then we have no chance.

[TrevorH]

This has been suggested on PH before, by myself and others, but would it help if the lanes were merged from both sides into a single, central lane? (which would then progress into the open lane, of course) Nobody then has the 'right of way'.

[Motorrad]

walm said:

My benchmark is to drive slowly past the queue (not aggressively) trying to find a natural slot opening up somewhere close to the obstruction, at least when I have sight of it.
I then merge naturally, without requiring someone to "let me in".

This is exactly what I do. I don't find it to be a problem because I'm not aggressive and I think that comes across to other road users. It's very rare somebody decides to block me and if they do I'm happy to wait for the next opening. It really isn't a problem. Likewise I will facilitate the entry of agressive drivers because it smooths the traffic flow for all concerned.

Flemke's argument stating that he doesn't zip merge because he knows nobody else will is part of the sheep mentality that's the problem. This attitude 'someone was there before me' is irrelevant. You don't have a place in a queue, driving is brownian motion, you have no idea what random sequence of events are going to place you where on the road.

Do you do things you know to be wrong just because everyone else does? Looked at logically it makes no sense.

Following this line of reasoning we should all sit in the middle lane rather than rejoining lane 1 at the earliest opportunity. In fact the road should just be one long middle lane that we all sit in and queue nicely.

Edited by Motorrad on Tuesday 2nd June 14:19

[flemke]

Motorrad said:

Flemke's argument stating that he doesn't zip merge because he knows nobody else will is part of the sheep mentality that's the problem.

That's not at all what I said, old boy.
To paraphrase what I did say, in many circumstances you can't "zip merge" all by yourself. Think about the origin of the expression "zip merge": will a zipper work if there is not a space for the tooth?

Motorrad said:

This attitude 'someone was there before me' is irrelevant. You don't have a place in a queue, driving is brownian motion, you have no idea what random sequence of events are going to place you where on the road.

Perhaps you yourself have no idea of what "random" sequence of events will ensue, but some of the rest of us do. Do you really think that it's random? If so, and if you are unable to assess probabilities and risks, you probably shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car or, even worse, on a motorad.

Motorrad said:

Do you do things you know to be wrong just because everyone else does? Looked at logically it makes no sense.

By your question, you mistakenly presume that each person's driving is independent of everyone else's. If you've just come upon a tailback into a merge, you cannot possibly know that "everyone else" in the nearside lane has done something wrong. Yet by your action, you may interfere with them all.

Motorrad said:

Following this line of reasoning we should all sit in the middle lane rather than rejoining lane 1 at the earliest opportunity. In fact the road should just be one long middle lane that we all sit in and queue nicely.

Again, that is all too simplistic.

Think about what happens when you go into, say, a bank or a fast food joint. Some places will have a regular queueing procedure, reinforced by signs or ropes or whatever. Other such places, however, have no established system. In the latter, they rely on the customers to organise themselves.
You might go into a McDonald's with two customers and two functioning tills, one customer at each. In that case, you might join a queue for one of the tills, or you might hang back and wait for whichever is open next. If you hang back, effectively starting a single queue for both tills, the next person in the shop should stand behind you; that would be the polite thing to do.
The numbers don't matter, but say the single queue now has 6 people in it. Person X now enters the shop, sees 6 people in a single queue for both tills, and decides that he is cleverly going to stand to the right of the person at the front of the queue, in effect, pretending that really there "should be" two queues, and that the 6 people who arrived ahead of him all perversely chose to get into the one on the left. Then as soon as the customer at the till on the right leaves, person X will walk straight to it, rudely jumping ahead of all who arrived before him.
This is what you're doing when you arrive at a traffic queue concentrated on the nearside, which may have started hours before your arrival, and you go all the way past it in the offside lane, oblivious to the fact that there clearly are no natural spaces in the queue ahead into which you can slot your car.

If there really is a natural space in the queue, by all means go for it. There could, however, be a perfectly legitimate reason why all those in the queue on the left who arrived before you did are waiting there. Just because it is physically possible for you to leapfrog them and then stick your nose in does not make doing it right.

[walm]

The bank analogy is bad because there is physically no way to "slot in" between two customers who are already queueing.
In the case of a line of cars, there is almost always a stop-start motion going on in the line as all the MLMs fail to notice the car in front of them moving and then fail to engage the clutch with any sort of efficiency.
As a result, more often than not, slots open up. Just don't leave it to the last 100 feet.

[bic]

Sigh, this queue mentality is such a fantastic trait we have isn't it. It's quite obvious in my little mind that if we queued in both lanes and merged in turn (zipped) then the flow of traffic would improve. Like the blinkered idiots who refuse to let you out of junctions for the sake of a car length when traffic is congested. IAM seems to agree with the merge in turn principal in this article

[Motorrad]

flemke said:

Motorrad said:

Flemke's argument stating that he doesn't zip merge because he knows nobody else will is part of the sheep mentality that's the problem.

That's not at all what I said, old boy.
To paraphrase what I did say, in many circumstances you can't "zip merge" all by yourself. Think about the origin of the expression "zip merge": will a zipper work if there is not a space for the tooth?

Motorrad said:

This attitude 'someone was there before me' is irrelevant. You don't have a place in a queue, driving is brownian motion, you have no idea what random sequence of events are going to place you where on the road.

Perhaps you yourself have no idea of what "random" sequence of events will ensue, but some of the rest of us do. Do you really think that it's random? If so, and if you are unable to assess probabilities and risks, you probably shouldn't be behind the wheel of a car or, even worse, on a motorad.

Motorrad said:

Do you do things you know to be wrong just because everyone else does? Looked at logically it makes no sense.

By your question, you mistakenly presume that each person's driving is independent of everyone else's. If you've just come upon a tailback into a merge, you cannot possibly know that "everyone else" in the nearside lane has done something wrong. Yet by your action, you may interfere with them all.

Motorrad said:

Following this line of reasoning we should all sit in the middle lane rather than rejoining lane 1 at the earliest opportunity. In fact the road should just be one long middle lane that we all sit in and queue nicely.

Again, that is all too simplistic.

Think about what happens when you go into, say, a bank or a fast food joint. Some places will have a regular queueing procedure, reinforced by signs or ropes or whatever. Other such places, however, have no established system. In the latter, they rely on the customers to organise themselves.
You might go into a McDonald's with two customers and two functioning tills, one customer at each. In that case, you might join a queue for one of the tills, or you might hang back and wait for whichever is open next. If you hang back, effectively starting a single queue for both tills, the next person in the shop should stand behind you; that would be the polite thing to do.
The numbers don't matter, but say the single queue now has 6 people in it. Person X now enters the shop, sees 6 people in a single queue for both tills, and decides that he is cleverly going to stand to the right of the person at the front of the queue, in effect, pretending that really there "should be" two queues, and that the 6 people who arrived ahead of him all perversely chose to get into the one on the left. Then as soon as the customer at the till on the right leaves, person X will walk straight to it, rudely jumping ahead of all who arrived before him.
This is what you're doing when you arrive at a traffic queue concentrated on the nearside, which may have started hours before your arrival, and you go all the way past it in the offside lane, oblivious to the fact that there clearly are no natural spaces in the queue ahead into which you can slot your car.

If there really is a natural space in the queue, by all means go for it. There could, however, be a perfectly legitimate reason why all those in the queue on the left who arrived before you did are waiting there. Just because it is physically possible for you to leapfrog them and then stick your nose in does not make doing it right.

Your entire reasoning is based on the there being a 'queue' to jump. There isn't that's my entire point.

What I find scary is that you seem to be suggesting you know how other drivers are going to react in a given situation. While it's possible to make an informed guess nobody really knows and that's the foundation of advanced driving systems.

You wouldn't be zip merging if the road was empty- if there are other drivers present then it's possible to zip merge. The fact that they might be idiots who queue in a long line and waste available road space is neither here nor there.

Your argument could equally be applied to lane discipline as I've already said.

I don't appreciate your belittling tone either, I haven't done that to you so I'd aks you to behave like a decent human being and keep this as civilised as possible. Do you suffer from road rage as well as appearing to suffer from 'forum rage'?

[walm]

Just FYI, this debate inspired a whole book on the topic.
http://www.howwedrive.com/2009/02/24/merge-overkil...