Opinons re merge in turn
Discussion
OK flemke you are entitled to your opinions but look at it like this.
Its the merge 2 intro 1 that causes the delay, agreed; but that delay occurs regardless of whether the merge is at the constriction, a few hundred yards back, half a mile or two miles back, largely immaterial.
I'm not talking about jamming in at the front far from it. What I'm talking about is trying to make sure the shortest length of road is blocked by queuing traffic, the fewest junctions blocked, the fewest entrances to premises and so on.
I'm talking about merging seamlessly, what is so difficult to understand? If AN Other doesn't want to merge or let you merge so flaming what, let the small minded person get on with it, let them get 4 seconds in front because that is what it usually means, without leaning on anyone or bullying.
Or are you one of the "I've queued so by golly you will to" and then you plant it and start playing blocking tactics? Start that with me and you'll be left to play with yourself, and you can take that anyway you like.
Seamless merging would not be a problem if people just lifted their vision, pegged their speed back, adopted proper space in front and behind, positioned themselves opposite a space and bob's your uncle. But no you get the queuing mentality. The mentality who close the gaps and tailgate to prevent someone getting in front, fine I'll get behind then. The queuing mentality who find the signs are wrong and the freaking lane isn't even closed. Seen it many times.
By your rules in that case everyone would get into lane 1 as soon as the signs appeared, queue and then find you needn't have.
By "you've been a user and deserved to be hung out there for ages" I think you misunderstand the significance of the comment re low differential speed. I'm talking about trickling past the traffic in lane 1, ie you are at the same speed plus a little bit, so you are hung out there a long time anyway, definitely NOT blasting past and jamming in. OK?
Like I say automotive body language.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 13th April 20:29
Its the merge 2 intro 1 that causes the delay, agreed; but that delay occurs regardless of whether the merge is at the constriction, a few hundred yards back, half a mile or two miles back, largely immaterial.
I'm not talking about jamming in at the front far from it. What I'm talking about is trying to make sure the shortest length of road is blocked by queuing traffic, the fewest junctions blocked, the fewest entrances to premises and so on.
I'm talking about merging seamlessly, what is so difficult to understand? If AN Other doesn't want to merge or let you merge so flaming what, let the small minded person get on with it, let them get 4 seconds in front because that is what it usually means, without leaning on anyone or bullying.
Or are you one of the "I've queued so by golly you will to" and then you plant it and start playing blocking tactics? Start that with me and you'll be left to play with yourself, and you can take that anyway you like.
Seamless merging would not be a problem if people just lifted their vision, pegged their speed back, adopted proper space in front and behind, positioned themselves opposite a space and bob's your uncle. But no you get the queuing mentality. The mentality who close the gaps and tailgate to prevent someone getting in front, fine I'll get behind then. The queuing mentality who find the signs are wrong and the freaking lane isn't even closed. Seen it many times.
By your rules in that case everyone would get into lane 1 as soon as the signs appeared, queue and then find you needn't have.
By "you've been a user and deserved to be hung out there for ages" I think you misunderstand the significance of the comment re low differential speed. I'm talking about trickling past the traffic in lane 1, ie you are at the same speed plus a little bit, so you are hung out there a long time anyway, definitely NOT blasting past and jamming in. OK?
Like I say automotive body language.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Thursday 13th April 20:29
Come on be real, we only drive in this selfish way because nobody can grab us by the back of the collar and sling us to the back of the queue.
Some people say that many times there are signs saying "Lane closed ahead" then there are`nt any......Yeh right.
Maybe the reason why people don`t push in when they are queueing for a coffee is because they might get a thick ear.
Some people say that many times there are signs saying "Lane closed ahead" then there are`nt any......Yeh right.
Maybe the reason why people don`t push in when they are queueing for a coffee is because they might get a thick ear.
Flat in Fifth said:Let's try to stay calm, FiF (and you can take that any way that you like).
...Start that with me and you'll be left to play with yourself, and you can take that anyway you like...
By "you've been a user and deserved to be hung out there for ages" I think you misunderstand the significance of the comment re low differential speed. I'm talking about trickling past the traffic in lane 1, ie you are at the same speed plus a little bit, so you are hung out there a long time anyway, definitely NOT blasting past and jamming in. OK?
I began my post by saying that I may have misunderstood your meaning.
If the meaning of your initial comments was the same as what you've written subsequently (summary paragraph above), that's great.
When in your initial post, however, you say
Flat in Fifth said:you do not exactly leave the impression that you have great respect or empathy for other road users who may have read the situation differently from how you did.
So there you are in lane 2, trickling past the sheep in lane 1.
When in your initial post you say
Flat in Fifth said:you do not exactly leave the impression that your principle objective is, as you asserted in your second post, to perform the public service of
All more or less gives the impresion that you were hung out to dry in lane 2 and just fell into line earliest reasonable opportunity. ONLY YOU know that there were several opportunities half a mile back.
Flat in Fifth said:
trying to make sure the shortest length of road is blocked by queuing traffic, the fewest junctions blocked, the fewest entrances to premises and so on.
Again, if I misconstrued your original post then please accept my apologies for not grasping your intentions. It does appear, however, that some of what you said in it is not quite as unselfish and ingenuous as what your latter post suggests.
Cheers.
gridgway said:So if in the slow lane there is a gap thirty cars back from the pinchpoint, but from there forward there are no gaps, you will overtake the thirty cars and hope that one of their drivers, who was more patient than you, will create a gap just to honour the fact that you were kind enough to carry on past him?
well when I find myself in L2 in the circs, I shall carry on merging perfectly politely at the front which is the only sensible merge place IMO!
Graham
Flemke to be honest I was trying to illustrate how "body language" alters a situation.
In a couple of paras the internet "body language" was that of the thrusting Laguna/BMW/Audi etc shod account exec slamming past and jamming in at the front.
The last para was more representative of the desired "automotive body language" was trying to describe, and to be honest it worked didn't it? You reacted adversely to the "suck it up" attitude and were more amenable to the softer approach.
So have I made my point?
As for those who say signs saying lane closed which closure doesn't happen well yes it does actually. For example every day temporary lane closures go up there is a period of time where the signs are up but the cones are not. Everyone slow down, make more space instead of jamming over to the left.
To comment, if I may, on flemke's last question to gridgway (sp?) yes the space 30 cars back, assuming suitable clearly would be the place to go. The problem starts with the ones who blast past right to front and jam in right against the cones at which point the self appointed queuing police start opening up with questionable tactics although its not often I get that done to me. I'm usually happily merged a lot earlier than that.
Was going to quote what the bible says but my copy of Roadcraft has been borrowed and I suspect is lurking in that tip my daughter calls a bedroom.
In essence Roadcraft says something along the lines that you should use all lanes merge towards the front of the queue but be aware that this may antagonise other queueing drivers and thus be prepared to modify the plan. I forget the exact wording.
To get back to the OP question, which is what is the correct method when TPTB have decided a merge in turn is the proper way. I still maintain use all the lanes and everyone act sensibly.
FiF
edited typos and a bit of text which got lost for some reason totally making a nonsense of one para
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 14th April 07:20
In a couple of paras the internet "body language" was that of the thrusting Laguna/BMW/Audi etc shod account exec slamming past and jamming in at the front.
The last para was more representative of the desired "automotive body language" was trying to describe, and to be honest it worked didn't it? You reacted adversely to the "suck it up" attitude and were more amenable to the softer approach.
So have I made my point?
As for those who say signs saying lane closed which closure doesn't happen well yes it does actually. For example every day temporary lane closures go up there is a period of time where the signs are up but the cones are not. Everyone slow down, make more space instead of jamming over to the left.
To comment, if I may, on flemke's last question to gridgway (sp?) yes the space 30 cars back, assuming suitable clearly would be the place to go. The problem starts with the ones who blast past right to front and jam in right against the cones at which point the self appointed queuing police start opening up with questionable tactics although its not often I get that done to me. I'm usually happily merged a lot earlier than that.
Was going to quote what the bible says but my copy of Roadcraft has been borrowed and I suspect is lurking in that tip my daughter calls a bedroom.
In essence Roadcraft says something along the lines that you should use all lanes merge towards the front of the queue but be aware that this may antagonise other queueing drivers and thus be prepared to modify the plan. I forget the exact wording.
To get back to the OP question, which is what is the correct method when TPTB have decided a merge in turn is the proper way. I still maintain use all the lanes and everyone act sensibly.
FiF
edited typos and a bit of text which got lost for some reason totally making a nonsense of one para
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Friday 14th April 07:20
flemke said:
You only know whether it was right to go to the front of the emptier lane after it's too late to change your mind.
If you go towards the front, overtake plenty of cars in the slower lane, and then seamlessly slide into a natural gap, then you've done an efficient and perspicacious bit of driving.
If you go towards the front, overtake plenty of cars in the slower lane, and then have to crowbar your way or rely on the unselfishness of a driver in the slower lane in order to move into it, then you should have been more thoughtful and not overtaken the others in the first place.
The tell-tale is when the overtaking driver is near enough to the pinchpoint to see whether there is that natural gap. If there is none, but the overtaker carries on regardless and needs to intimidate other drivers into creating space for him, that's usually proof that the overtaker was a selfish ass.
btw flemke ref your earlier post quoted above I suspect you and I are not too far apart in the scheme of things.
Flat in Fifth said:Agreed. I suspect that in practice there wouldn't be much in it.
btw flemke ref your earlier post quoted above I suspect you and I are not too far apart in the scheme of things.
It does get under my skin when people are referred to as 'sheep'. Especially when almost all the world's problems are caused by the wolves.
flemke said:
btw flemke ref your earlier post quoted above I suspect you and I are not too far apart in the scheme of things.
It does get under my skin when people are referred to as 'sheep'. Especially when almost all the world's problems are caused by the wolves.
Touche
Do the zippy thing!!
In some US States it's the law.
There are some permanent 'Merge in Turn' signs -I can think of one southbound on the A322 thru Bracknell -makes perfect sense to me........instead of two miles of 'sheep' and a hundred yards of others, think of one mile of everybody gently merging in turn.....
Rgds
Mel
In some US States it's the law.
There are some permanent 'Merge in Turn' signs -I can think of one southbound on the A322 thru Bracknell -makes perfect sense to me........instead of two miles of 'sheep' and a hundred yards of others, think of one mile of everybody gently merging in turn.....
Rgds
Mel
Flat in Fifth said:
To comment, if I may, on flemke's last question to gridgway (sp?) yes the space 30 cars back, assuming suitable clearly would be the place to go. The problem starts with the ones who blast past right to front and jam in right against the cones at which point the self appointed queuing police start opening up with questionable tactics although its not often I get that done to me. I'm usually happily merged a lot earlier than that.
In essence Roadcraft says something along the lines that you should use all lanes merge towards the front of the queue but be aware that this may antagonise other queueing drivers and thus be prepared to modify the plan. I forget the exact wording.
In answer to flemke as well (good spelling BTW FiF - ta), if there is a gap 30 cars back and the rest is jammed up, then no I am not going to shoot to the front and jam myself in. However I do follow the roadcraft approach of thinking that merging is best done towards the front.
Graham
my, quite frankly genius idea to circumvent this problem is thus...
instead of lowering the speed limits in roadworks on dual-carriageways / motorways (e.g. 70mph -> 40mph), they should DOUBLE the speedlimit through the roadworks section (e.g. 70mph -> 140mph), thus maintaining the flow of 2 lanes of traffic through just 1, without causing any undue waiting or queueing
i can't see any problems with this tbh.
instead of lowering the speed limits in roadworks on dual-carriageways / motorways (e.g. 70mph -> 40mph), they should DOUBLE the speedlimit through the roadworks section (e.g. 70mph -> 140mph), thus maintaining the flow of 2 lanes of traffic through just 1, without causing any undue waiting or queueing
i can't see any problems with this tbh.
This topic is a great one for polarising PHers into the early mergers (the sheep?) and the late ones (d'heads?)
I am of the opinion that if the Police or Highways wanted traffic to merge a mile back, that's where they would have put the cones. (OK, I'm being flippant)
I would tend to agree with FiF in that I would slowly make my way past the queue and look for a reasonable opportunity to merge a reasonable distance from the obstacle. I don't drive up to the cones and force my way in.
Merge in turn means that the lanes should make way for one another but in practice the British obsession with queueing and haters of queue-jumpers leads to the early birds - usually the left lane - closing up gaps. On the continent, everything seems to work a lot smoother but then over there people don't take being overtaken as an insult.
I am of the opinion that if the Police or Highways wanted traffic to merge a mile back, that's where they would have put the cones. (OK, I'm being flippant)
I would tend to agree with FiF in that I would slowly make my way past the queue and look for a reasonable opportunity to merge a reasonable distance from the obstacle. I don't drive up to the cones and force my way in.
Merge in turn means that the lanes should make way for one another but in practice the British obsession with queueing and haters of queue-jumpers leads to the early birds - usually the left lane - closing up gaps. On the continent, everything seems to work a lot smoother but then over there people don't take being overtaken as an insult.
I agree that everyone should merge as late as possible, choosing whichever lane is shorter. This way everyone still keeps "their place" in the queue but more importantly, and I'm surprised no one has mentioned this earlier, the length of the queue is halfed.
And when the queue is longer than it needs to be, it starts affecting people at junctions where it otherwise shouldn't. So when people talk about being considerate to drivers who are patiently waiting, those drivers are actually being inconsiderate to the people wanting to turn left at the roundabout 50 metres behind.
And as for the drivers who pull out and cover both lanes, next time it happens to me, I'll get past, then I'll straddle both lanes, at 0 Mph, and you can see just how inconsiderate I can be!
And when the queue is longer than it needs to be, it starts affecting people at junctions where it otherwise shouldn't. So when people talk about being considerate to drivers who are patiently waiting, those drivers are actually being inconsiderate to the people wanting to turn left at the roundabout 50 metres behind.
And as for the drivers who pull out and cover both lanes, next time it happens to me, I'll get past, then I'll straddle both lanes, at 0 Mph, and you can see just how inconsiderate I can be!
The fastest route through a lane closure for all lanes is to fully use all lanes until the point of closure, then merge one to one. People who merge across early are not doing anybody any favours; if you need proof of this, work it out on a piece of paper. The same goes for lorry drivers who block two lanes thinking that they are doing something good, once again they are failing to understand how to best negotiate the closure.
I’ll try to explain. If two lanes are narrowing to one and there are 6 cars in each lane if you are the last car in one of those lanes, then merging at the front will mean that you will go through the closure after 10 cars (assuming your side merges first)
Now if car three on the other lane decides to merge across early, he will be in front of you in your lane, his place will invariably be taken by another car in the outside lane meaning that you will now go through after 12 cars.
Each car that moves across early will ultimately move you back two cars as the outside lane is still open and will inevitably re-fill. The earlier you move across the worst you make the situation. I have seen this happen on many occasions where I have been some way from the closure almost at a standstill as more and more cars merge in front.
This is why you often see signs instructing drivers to use all lanes. There is no need to extend the length of the closure by imposing your own lane closure before it is needed.
The problems are actually caused by people merging early, if everybody stayed in their own lanes until the merge point it would be quicker for everybody and there wouldn’t be large areas of empty lane for people to ‘roar up’.
I’ll try to explain. If two lanes are narrowing to one and there are 6 cars in each lane if you are the last car in one of those lanes, then merging at the front will mean that you will go through the closure after 10 cars (assuming your side merges first)
Now if car three on the other lane decides to merge across early, he will be in front of you in your lane, his place will invariably be taken by another car in the outside lane meaning that you will now go through after 12 cars.
Each car that moves across early will ultimately move you back two cars as the outside lane is still open and will inevitably re-fill. The earlier you move across the worst you make the situation. I have seen this happen on many occasions where I have been some way from the closure almost at a standstill as more and more cars merge in front.
This is why you often see signs instructing drivers to use all lanes. There is no need to extend the length of the closure by imposing your own lane closure before it is needed.
The problems are actually caused by people merging early, if everybody stayed in their own lanes until the merge point it would be quicker for everybody and there wouldn’t be large areas of empty lane for people to ‘roar up’.
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff