was i unduly aggressive
Discussion
yellowjack said:
All that said, I truly despise the halfwits who barrel up to, and beyond, the merge point without even pretending to look for a suitable gap into which they can merge, and bully their way in further along than they ought to. I witnessed one such idiot drive straight into the side of the car in lane 1, causing no end of chaos, especially when they flat refused to move their car off the carriageway to do the details exchange, insisting that the Police must attend and investigated. I gave a statement to back the innocent driver in the end, but it was funny when a passing police car did attend, but only to warn the aggressive doofus to shift his car off the carriageway or face a charge of obstruction. 
Thank you. The APIS viewpoint.JonV8V said:
Its an old debate. Traffic flowing, using both lanes, merging with hardly a delay for anyone, its fine.
Coming across a line of stationary traffic and cruising past them and expecting them to just give way is not reading the road ahead. Don't be in a lane where you can see its ending but you can't see any landing zone.
also
Highway code Section 288
"do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic"
I think using the free lane could be classified as doing this.
Thank you. The APIS point of view.Coming across a line of stationary traffic and cruising past them and expecting them to just give way is not reading the road ahead. Don't be in a lane where you can see its ending but you can't see any landing zone.
also
Highway code Section 288
"do not switch lanes to overtake queuing traffic"
I think using the free lane could be classified as doing this.
Edited by JonV8V on Friday 17th July 08:10
CarAbuser said:
I know the PH convention for this situation is to use both lanes and then merge at the end but that never really happens. And being the only person to do so singles you out as a 
.
Recently I was sat in L1 in a long line of traffic on the A449. L2 was completely clear for the entire 1/2 mile of the queue before the merge in turn. I took roughly 20min to reach the bottleneck and in that time only 1 person was of the opinion they should use L2. A man in an old RR with a pink shirt.
I could have pulled into L2 and skipped 20min of waiting. But I felt that doing so would make me "that w@nker in a BMW" and decided to relax and wait my time.
What the highway code allows and what people find to be morally correct are two very different things.
Thank you. The APIS brief exactly. especially like the 'Morally Correct' quote..Recently I was sat in L1 in a long line of traffic on the A449. L2 was completely clear for the entire 1/2 mile of the queue before the merge in turn. I took roughly 20min to reach the bottleneck and in that time only 1 person was of the opinion they should use L2. A man in an old RR with a pink shirt.
I could have pulled into L2 and skipped 20min of waiting. But I felt that doing so would make me "that w@nker in a BMW" and decided to relax and wait my time.
What the highway code allows and what people find to be morally correct are two very different things.
BertBert said:
WD39 said:
Thank you. The APIS viewpoint.
Do what?I was pleased to read several posts on this thread which concur with my view and that motorists who support the 'Use the road available' mantra are not always correct and sometimes in these situations one has to be patient and wait your turn.
I fully support the 'Merge in turn' approach when this properly signposted, usually in road works situations.
The HC has specific instructions regarding MIT, and is worth reading.
I'm sure that we have all witnessed this style of driving when, suddenly, a car appears from nowhere on your right and cuts in, usually on a hatched area, in front of you. There are other examples.
I would conclude with the thought that MIT is a legitamate highway manoevre, but only if used safely and with consideration for your fellow road users.
It's just not a well thought through position though. I'd suggest it's not a perspective formed from a logical analysis of the options available. But rather formed of the dislike of other motorists being in a position where they have made ground on you.
I'm wondering if you are also the sole and founder member of the HDTS as well
Bert
I'm wondering if you are also the sole and founder member of the HDTS as well
Bert
In flowing traffic, merging at the junction is fine if you've spotted a landing zone - like any other overtake if you don't know when or how you'll get into the lane you need you shouldn't be out there in the other one - it's simply failing to read the road ahead. Same thing happens at motorway exits when you get the late movers who pray for a gap to appear.
That landing zone just does not exist in stationary traffic.
That's my opinion, others vary, I can guess which version has fewer confrontations. That said, I've done both at times, usually when I need a wee
If 'advanced' driving is who can get there quicker then waving two fingers past a queue of traffic then hoping to drop lucky on a driving miss daisy to nip in will win. It's not really my definition.
That landing zone just does not exist in stationary traffic.
That's my opinion, others vary, I can guess which version has fewer confrontations. That said, I've done both at times, usually when I need a wee
If 'advanced' driving is who can get there quicker then waving two fingers past a queue of traffic then hoping to drop lucky on a driving miss daisy to nip in will win. It's not really my definition.
JonV8V said:
That landing zone just does not exist in stationary traffic.
In a MIT situation, the "landing zone" as you put it, should be created between each vehicle during the merging process. Those drivers who do not leave sufficient space for the merge are the ones who are doing it wrong.How are people differentiating between 'lane ending and you don't want to be here anymore' and 'merge in turn and be nice to each other'? I've seen signs saying 'merge in turn' but lots of places don't have signs like that. Or is any place where two collapses into one a merge in turn?
Mandat said:
JonV8V said:
That landing zone just does not exist in stationary traffic.
In a MIT situation, the "landing zone" as you put it, should be created between each vehicle during the merging process. Those drivers who do not leave sufficient space for the merge are the ones who are doing it wrong.WD39 said:
Can you imagine, in any driving sceario, where motorists would leave a car's length free for 'joining' traffic? No, me neither.
That's mainly because the're reduced to a standstill, or near-standstill.People who keep moving generally leave a gap of some description.
ETA: Actually, it's commonplace to see people crawling along in slow-moving traffic leaving huge gaps ahead of them.
Besides, they might be more inclined to leave a gap if the joining of traffic was an on-going process.
Edited by Pete317 on Monday 30th November 20:49
WD39 said:
Mandat said:
JonV8V said:
That landing zone just does not exist in stationary traffic.
In a MIT situation, the "landing zone" as you put it, should be created between each vehicle during the merging process. Those drivers who do not leave sufficient space for the merge are the ones who are doing it wrong.BertBert said:
It's just not a well thought through position though. I'd suggest it's not a perspective formed from a logical analysis of the options available. But rather formed of the dislike of other motorists being in a position where they have made ground on you.
I'm wondering if you are also the sole and founder member of the HDTS as well
Bert
I would not want to belong to a club that would have me as a member. (APIS excepted.)I'm wondering if you are also the sole and founder member of the HDTS as well
Bert
Good read and comments.Can't be bothered with all the aggravation on the road if somebody wants to get into a gap in front of me I let them in.I often see it going home drivers push in last minute or they carry on to the r/about go around and hope to be ahead.If they are good luck about 5 minutes saved.
Foppo said:
Good read and comments.Can't be bothered with all the aggravation on the road if somebody wants to get into a gap in front of me I let them in.I often see it going home drivers push in last minute or they carry on to the r/about go around and hope to be ahead.If they are good luck about 5 minutes saved.
Thank you Foppo. Advance APIS!!I was a passenger in a car going from Sherborne to Yeovil, same thing 1 mile queue in the left lane, nothing in the right lane so he stayed on the right and "pushed in" at the roundabout; after that stop start traffic for the next 500 yards.
Standard beige pensioner in a honda came and banged on the window "do you realise I have been patiently queuing for the last mile"
The answer was "you forget one factor, my time is more valuable than yours" then drove on
Standard beige pensioner in a honda came and banged on the window "do you realise I have been patiently queuing for the last mile"
The answer was "you forget one factor, my time is more valuable than yours" then drove on
Rangeroverover said:
I was a passenger in a car going from Sherborne to Yeovil, same thing 1 mile queue in the left lane, nothing in the right lane so he stayed on the right and "pushed in" at the roundabout; after that stop start traffic for the next 500 yards.
Standard beige pensioner in a honda came and banged on the window "do you realise I have been patiently queuing for the last mile"
The answer was "you forget one factor, my time is more valuable than yours" then drove on
wrong answer Standard beige pensioner in a honda came and banged on the window "do you realise I have been patiently queuing for the last mile"
The answer was "you forget one factor, my time is more valuable than yours" then drove on
" i cannot account for your inability to follow the highway code "
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff