was i unduly aggressive
Discussion
ShaunTheSheep said:
There's no morals involved! You're following the rules by using both lanes.
Morally dubious is when I see a huge queue for the left turn at a roundabout and choose to sail down the empty straight ahead / right turn, do a 360 of the roundabout and be on my merry way.
That's only morally dubious because there's an argument that people at the entrances to the roundabout may not expect you to go right round so is it fair on them. But the people I skip past don't come into that equation so it's neither here nor there.
Shaun,people do expect you to go around i think the clue is in the word ROUNDabout.Morally dubious is when I see a huge queue for the left turn at a roundabout and choose to sail down the empty straight ahead / right turn, do a 360 of the roundabout and be on my merry way.
That's only morally dubious because there's an argument that people at the entrances to the roundabout may not expect you to go right round so is it fair on them. But the people I skip past don't come into that equation so it's neither here nor there.
Everyone at all the other entrances to the roundavout, have to give way to those on it.
I do not suppose that the ones that you sail past from say the 6 oclock position, would recollect you as you exit at the 9 oclock, having missed out 12 and 3. nor would those at 3 know you came in at 6. Anyway that waiting at 6 o clock have to allow those from 12 and 3 precedence, even those from the 9 position who want to go back to whence they came.
Now doing that on a mini roundabout is a different proposition
silverfoxcc said:
ShaunTheSheep said:
There's no morals involved! You're following the rules by using both lanes.
Morally dubious is when I see a huge queue for the left turn at a roundabout and choose to sail down the empty straight ahead / right turn, do a 360 of the roundabout and be on my merry way.
That's only morally dubious because there's an argument that people at the entrances to the roundabout may not expect you to go right round so is it fair on them. But the people I skip past don't come into that equation so it's neither here nor there.
Shaun,people do expect you to go around i think the clue is in the word ROUNDabout.Morally dubious is when I see a huge queue for the left turn at a roundabout and choose to sail down the empty straight ahead / right turn, do a 360 of the roundabout and be on my merry way.
That's only morally dubious because there's an argument that people at the entrances to the roundabout may not expect you to go right round so is it fair on them. But the people I skip past don't come into that equation so it's neither here nor there.
Everyone at all the other entrances to the roundavout, have to give way to those on it.
I do not suppose that the ones that you sail past from say the 6 oclock position, would recollect you as you exit at the 9 oclock, having missed out 12 and 3. nor would those at 3 know you came in at 6. Anyway that waiting at 6 o clock have to allow those from 12 and 3 precedence, even those from the 9 position who want to go back to whence they came.
Now doing that on a mini roundabout is a different proposition
Can we have a whip round please.
Then we can pay for a coach to take all the "Wah! Wah! The meanies are pushing in!" brigade, who have failed to properly read and comply with basic signage, for a trip down the A303 between Stonehenge and the A36. There, from the safety (as far as the rest of us are concerned, at least) of their coach seats, they can gaze in wonder, and bewilderment, at the swathe of brand new signs imploring drivers to "Use Both Lanes When Queuing" and to "Merge In Turn", with countdown boards from 800 yards out, and clear pictograms to explain what merge in turn actually means, specifically, I imagine, for the benefit of the particularly stoopid who walk and (sadly) drive among us. The highways agancy really, really want you to queue in both lanes right up until the clearly (check out the curvy arrows painted on the road surface
) marked "Merge Point".
What slows down the progress of EVERYONE through these pinch points? Feckin' idiots who block legitimate attempts to merge, that's who! If they would just learn to merge in turn, and leave decent gaps in which to do it, everyone could maintain a smoother pace through the pinch point, and traffic would get "back up to speed" more swiftly after it. It's not rocket science, but it's well beyond the grasp of a depressingly large number of the drivers I'm forced to share the roads with. A pox on them all!
Then we can pay for a coach to take all the "Wah! Wah! The meanies are pushing in!" brigade, who have failed to properly read and comply with basic signage, for a trip down the A303 between Stonehenge and the A36. There, from the safety (as far as the rest of us are concerned, at least) of their coach seats, they can gaze in wonder, and bewilderment, at the swathe of brand new signs imploring drivers to "Use Both Lanes When Queuing" and to "Merge In Turn", with countdown boards from 800 yards out, and clear pictograms to explain what merge in turn actually means, specifically, I imagine, for the benefit of the particularly stoopid who walk and (sadly) drive among us. The highways agancy really, really want you to queue in both lanes right up until the clearly (check out the curvy arrows painted on the road surface
) marked "Merge Point".What slows down the progress of EVERYONE through these pinch points? Feckin' idiots who block legitimate attempts to merge, that's who! If they would just learn to merge in turn, and leave decent gaps in which to do it, everyone could maintain a smoother pace through the pinch point, and traffic would get "back up to speed" more swiftly after it. It's not rocket science, but it's well beyond the grasp of a depressingly large number of the drivers I'm forced to share the roads with. A pox on them all!
One point that has been missed is that it does matter to the highways agency and others which approach you take. If all or most drivers go in one lane, then the length of the queue will naturally increase. This may not mean that the average queuing time is increased. But what it does mean is that the queue can extend back to block junctions etc.
This is a factor for instance on the A303 just mentioned where the Stonehenge pinch point can cause a queue back past the Princessa roundabout for Amesbury, and even further back to block the Solstice services junction too.
That is one reason the Highways Agency want people to queue in all lanes. And if you do that then the fairest way is to merge in turn. And rather than people second guessing when the other lane has been faster or slower it is fairer just to merge in turn every time. As has been said, in my view it is the people who don't do that that are causing the problem
This is a factor for instance on the A303 just mentioned where the Stonehenge pinch point can cause a queue back past the Princessa roundabout for Amesbury, and even further back to block the Solstice services junction too.
That is one reason the Highways Agency want people to queue in all lanes. And if you do that then the fairest way is to merge in turn. And rather than people second guessing when the other lane has been faster or slower it is fairer just to merge in turn every time. As has been said, in my view it is the people who don't do that that are causing the problem
R0G said:
If I had another driver doing what they did then I know I did something incorrectly in this situation and would do it differently in the future
The one question to answer is . why did you have to go behind the caravan and not behind the car which was following it ?
Have to?The one question to answer is . why did you have to go behind the caravan and not behind the car which was following it ?
I didn't have to.
But that was the natural point to go behind at the merge in turn point. But as soon as I started to, he closed the gap (even though that meant moving slightly to the left). After that as I have admitted there was a slight cussedness on my part
JonV8V said:
Highway code Section 288
"do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic"
I think using the free lane could be classified as doing this.
I think this only applies if you are in the lane that has the queue in it - and switch to the other lane with the specific intent of overtaking the queue. If you are already in the other lane upon encountering the queue - this rule doesn't apply (IMO)."do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic"
I think using the free lane could be classified as doing this.
Dave_lotus said:
Came down a DC towards roadworks. Plenty of signs saying to use both lanes when queuing so I stayed to right which was plainly clearer. After passing about 1/4 mile of traffic we get to front where signs are to merge in turn.
My passage naturally brings me to pull to left behind caravan, but some bloke in a little Toyota (who to be fair has presumably had people overtaking him for 1/4 mile) objects to this and pulls up to left with intent of closing gap.
I stick to plan and eventually he drops back (and flashes lights to indicate his displeasure).
Wife told me off for being aggressive in forcing him to let me in as per signs.
Was I?
Nothing wrong with the action (if completely truthful). Possibly the telling off was the demeanour in the process of this maneuver?! My passage naturally brings me to pull to left behind caravan, but some bloke in a little Toyota (who to be fair has presumably had people overtaking him for 1/4 mile) objects to this and pulls up to left with intent of closing gap.
I stick to plan and eventually he drops back (and flashes lights to indicate his displeasure).
Wife told me off for being aggressive in forcing him to let me in as per signs.
Was I?
yellowjack said:
What slows down the progress of EVERYONE through these pinch points? Feckin' idiots who block legitimate attempts to merge, that's who! If they would just learn to merge in turn, and leave decent gaps in which to do it, everyone could maintain a smoother pace through the pinch point, and traffic would get "back up to speed" more swiftly after it. It's not rocket science, but it's well beyond the grasp of a depressingly large number of the drivers I'm forced to share the roads with. A pox on them all!
Six of one and half dozen of the otherIMO but things would be infinitely improved with some cooperation and less hostility!Surprised they haven't put up a "merge" camera anywhere yet to cash in on the retards.
JonV8V said:
That's actually quite funny. Don't know why supermarkets don't create multiple queues for one till and cut down on staff as queues will be shorter by your logic. Petrol stations could have just one pump but lot of lanes for it. We could create multiple waiting lists for just one surgeon in the nhs and tell everyone they're only a few from the front. Genius.
Lordy Lordy, don't let the NHS numptys read this.......Some interesting points here. The rules provide that drivers should merge in turn at the point of obstruction. The signage states "use both lanes" and at the point of obstruction "merge in turn". Some bizarre quirk in the national character means most drivers disobey the rules and ignore the signs, usually causing unnecessary congestion and delay for others. It does not follow that it is OK to bully your way into one busy lane from the other free lane: you still need to merge, out of turn if necessary.
I have never understood queuing at airports: the aeroplane doesn't leave until the last passenger is in it.
And what really pisses me off is the way that people queuing at cash machines queue across the pavement, thus blocking it, rather than along the side of the building in which the cash machine is located.
I have never understood queuing at airports: the aeroplane doesn't leave until the last passenger is in it.
And what really pisses me off is the way that people queuing at cash machines queue across the pavement, thus blocking it, rather than along the side of the building in which the cash machine is located.
Dave_lotus said:
He tried for about 45s or 50m to squeeze me out. But I could see he was getting onto the dirt and gravel that is by the side of the road so I knew he would lose as he would have to turn in whereas I was going straight
What was wrong with letting him go in front? Nothing much of course which is why my wife may have a point.
You've answered your own question.What was wrong with letting him go in front? Nothing much of course which is why my wife may have a point.
He was aggressive because of his apparent ignorance of the rules.
You acted aggressively in attempting to enforce the rules.
People may be ignorant of certain points in the rules for various reasons. Of course, they might simply be numpties, but it could also be that the rules have changed since they learnt them, or simply because they're foreign drivers who are not fully aware of all the nuances in the Highway Code.
In any situation, your actions should never be to compound someone else's mistake.
Pete317 said:
You've answered your own question.
He was aggressive because of his apparent ignorance of the rules.
You acted aggressively in attempting to enforce the rules.
On the basis that I'm not sure that we are of one mind about "the rules", I'm not sure they are that helpful to determine what went on! How's about "an advanced driver should where possible, not cause or exacerbate aggressive behaviour in other drivers"?He was aggressive because of his apparent ignorance of the rules.
You acted aggressively in attempting to enforce the rules.
Bert
I'm incredibly pig headed when it comes to this stuff (which I'm aware makes me as much of a knob as those who block merging)
If I see a decent gap, I'll indicate and slowly begin to move into it, but if somebody accelerates to try to block me, I just force my way in - you tend to find people are brave up to a point, but soon give way once things get a bit tight.
The bravest I've ever encountered was a guy in a new BMW X1 who tried overtaking me after I completed the merge, and smacked straight into a traffic island, destroying 1 tyre and alloy. Made me laugh a lot more than it probably should have.
If I see a decent gap, I'll indicate and slowly begin to move into it, but if somebody accelerates to try to block me, I just force my way in - you tend to find people are brave up to a point, but soon give way once things get a bit tight.
The bravest I've ever encountered was a guy in a new BMW X1 who tried overtaking me after I completed the merge, and smacked straight into a traffic island, destroying 1 tyre and alloy. Made me laugh a lot more than it probably should have.
BertBert said:
Pete317 said:
You've answered your own question.
He was aggressive because of his apparent ignorance of the rules.
You acted aggressively in attempting to enforce the rules.
On the basis that I'm not sure that we are of one mind about "the rules", I'm not sure they are that helpful to determine what went on! How's about "an advanced driver should where possible, not cause or exacerbate aggressive behaviour in other drivers"?He was aggressive because of his apparent ignorance of the rules.
You acted aggressively in attempting to enforce the rules.
Bert
Pete317 said:
BertBert said:
Pete317 said:
You've answered your own question.
He was aggressive because of his apparent ignorance of the rules.
You acted aggressively in attempting to enforce the rules.
On the basis that I'm not sure that we are of one mind about "the rules", I'm not sure they are that helpful to determine what went on! How's about "an advanced driver should where possible, not cause or exacerbate aggressive behaviour in other drivers"?He was aggressive because of his apparent ignorance of the rules.
You acted aggressively in attempting to enforce the rules.
Bert
BertBert said:
Pete317 said:
BertBert said:
Pete317 said:
You've answered your own question.
He was aggressive because of his apparent ignorance of the rules.
You acted aggressively in attempting to enforce the rules.
On the basis that I'm not sure that we are of one mind about "the rules", I'm not sure they are that helpful to determine what went on! How's about "an advanced driver should where possible, not cause or exacerbate aggressive behaviour in other drivers"?He was aggressive because of his apparent ignorance of the rules.
You acted aggressively in attempting to enforce the rules.
Bert
Edited by Pete317 on Friday 20th November 17:03
Pete317 said:
Sorry Bert, I misread you. It sounded like you were questioning whether people had the same interpretation of the rules
Yes I'm not being very clear. I was observing that the people on here debated the merge-in-turn rule (and its application), hence expecting the general public to have one view about it is incorrect. I was then saying that if the OP was "enforcing" the rule, then a. it would expect to lead to anxiousness, and b. it was not in itself very good driving.Bert
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff