Lane Closure - Merge In Turn - 800yds or at closure?
Discussion
the_lone_wolf said:
And yet again, totally irrelevant as the signs and instructions are there, do you really not see that?
Of course pushing in front of someone is wrong, but it's not pushing in - you are choosing to sit in a queue of stationary/slow moving traffic while others use the road network correctly, if you don't like that, use the road correctly yourself.
So simple...
The reason I don't see it as irrelevant is because I don't think the morality of the issue changes just because there's a sign there. Clearly you are going to piss a lot of people off and I just prefer not to piss people off.Of course pushing in front of someone is wrong, but it's not pushing in - you are choosing to sit in a queue of stationary/slow moving traffic while others use the road network correctly, if you don't like that, use the road correctly yourself.
So simple...
So back to my previous point, if you want to use all of the tarmac, as instructed, but agree that pushing in is wrong, would you happily just go to the front of the lane that's ending and wait until a suitably large number of cars came past before merging? Or to put it another way, would you be annoyed if that was forced upon you by a line of drivers not letting you merge or would you accept it as totally fair?
T0MMY said:
The reason I don't see it as irrelevant is because I don't think the morality of the issue changes just because there's a sign there. Clearly you are going to piss a lot of people off and I just prefer not to piss people off.
So back to my previous point, if you want to use all of the tarmac, as instructed, but agree that pushing in is wrong, would you happily just go to the front of the lane that's ending and wait until a suitably large number of cars came past before merging? Or to put it another way, would you be annoyed if that was forced upon you by a line of drivers not letting you merge or would you accept it as totally fair?
Good point well made!!So back to my previous point, if you want to use all of the tarmac, as instructed, but agree that pushing in is wrong, would you happily just go to the front of the lane that's ending and wait until a suitably large number of cars came past before merging? Or to put it another way, would you be annoyed if that was forced upon you by a line of drivers not letting you merge or would you accept it as totally fair?
Blayney said:
Can you see that if everyone merged in turn that it would benefit everyone though? The reason that it only benefits the one guy following the suggested use of the road is because everyone else is queuing inanely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCLF2tyW0TU
Actually no, I don't see it like that, unless this is in town where a longer queue is going to block a roundabout or something, in which case, yes, use both lanes (that will normally happen anyway so you don;t fly past people).https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCLF2tyW0TU
The cars will move through the single lane section at a fixed rate, that's the bottle neck. If people try to merge right at the bottleneck gaps will appear in traffic as people have to merge from a stationary position or get into little conflicts battling their way in. If they do this further back, those gaps will all have time to naturally close up and you get the most cars through in the shortest time as we're all in a neat little line.
T0MMY said:
Because unless I could see it was going to have an overall benefit for everyone queueing, I would feel like my more rapid progress was coming at the cost of every single person I'd gone past and personally I'd rather not be "that guy".
Just because you don't understand a sign doesn't mean you can ignore it though.I don't understand some of the speed limit signs, should I ignore those too?
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Christ you're pursuing me from the other thread now.I'd be interested to see your reaction if I came up beside you at a traffic light with two lanes going down to one and burned you off to push in front. I suspect you might not pass it off as being within the rules.
Fox- said:
But transport authorities DO and they know a bit more about traffic flow than you do.
Stop messing it up for everyone else.
Keep watching that video until it sinks in
Do you actually disagree with my response to the video then out of interest? It seems to make sense to me.Stop messing it up for everyone else.
Keep watching that video until it sinks in
They have a blanket rule to cover situations where queueing traffic will block another junction. If that's not the case, say on a long stretch of motorway, I think my method would get people through quicker. Actually I can't see how it could possibly not.
Tommy just let the bigger boys in their panzer wagons go in front. I hope it makes them feel much more superior and it may also make their little tiny winkies a little bit bigger. After all I'm sure they are all powerfully built company directors that are much more important than us a should be alowed on their way unimpeded by lower class scum like us.
@Tommy - I agree with your traffic light example, however if you matched your speed with the other lane and merged in turn I would be fine with it. This is what I do in the situation you have described. It works perfectly and doesn't impede anyway. As I have been saying.
@marmite - I don't drive a large german car. I drive a very small french one. My trouser snake is of average size. My job title is "technician". Where's your god now?
@marmite - I don't drive a large german car. I drive a very small french one. My trouser snake is of average size. My job title is "technician". Where's your god now?
bobt said:
marmitemania said:
A little presumptuous aren't you? I do not shop in Aldi. Do you?
I do not shop "at" Aldi occasionally, not "in" Aldi.So, same question, different shop.
Do you join the longest queue at the Co-Op?
T0MMY said:
The reason I don't see it as irrelevant is because I don't think the morality of the issue changes just because there's a sign there. Clearly you are going to piss a lot of people off and I just prefer not to piss people off.
The only people getting pissed off are the few idiots who don't understand how to drive, their opinion wouldn't mean anything to me, there is no "morality" issue to discuss... I'm surprised to read that there are motoring enthusiasts (this is PistonHeads) who are arguing about the principle of 'merging in turn'. It works, it's obvious why it works and if carried out correctly is totally fair. Fully utilising all the available road space is essential when trying to mitigate congestion.
I just wish that the British motorist was better educated about this common sense manoeuvre. So I agree with the previous posts suggesting a campaign on the TV etc.
I just wish that the British motorist was better educated about this common sense manoeuvre. So I agree with the previous posts suggesting a campaign on the TV etc.
Merging in turn works when everyone supports it but everyone's own busines is always more important than the next guy's.
Very few drivers leave enough room when approaching the merge point which means driver merging at the correct point normally have to try and push in, causing both lines of traffic to become stop/start. If we weren't all in such a rush then drivers would leave over a cars length gap allowiing merging safely and mititing the risk of an accident from sufdden braking but it will never happen. With driver's reluctance to merge at the end, leaving a proper gap just makes queues longer and noone is coming past to merge into them.
Personally i look to merge when i can see the end of the lanbe and a gap, if no gap appears its the long wait...but i found its not normally that long a wait.
I nearly ended up in a crash last week on the M1 as it went from 3 lanes to 1 lane for roadbworks, it was signposted from 800m and at 800m everyone shoved hazards on and dove to the inside lane on the brakes. 2 labes clear for 800m, the inside lane was full. Noone wanted to be the impatient guy noone likes who drive past the 400 cars sat waiting patiently....
Very few drivers leave enough room when approaching the merge point which means driver merging at the correct point normally have to try and push in, causing both lines of traffic to become stop/start. If we weren't all in such a rush then drivers would leave over a cars length gap allowiing merging safely and mititing the risk of an accident from sufdden braking but it will never happen. With driver's reluctance to merge at the end, leaving a proper gap just makes queues longer and noone is coming past to merge into them.
Personally i look to merge when i can see the end of the lanbe and a gap, if no gap appears its the long wait...but i found its not normally that long a wait.
I nearly ended up in a crash last week on the M1 as it went from 3 lanes to 1 lane for roadbworks, it was signposted from 800m and at 800m everyone shoved hazards on and dove to the inside lane on the brakes. 2 labes clear for 800m, the inside lane was full. Noone wanted to be the impatient guy noone likes who drive past the 400 cars sat waiting patiently....
OpulentBob said:
YOU'VE PAID FOR BOTH LANES. USE THEM.
I design roads and traffic management arrangements (roadworks layouts) for a living, I've done it for 15 years.
Why isn't it standard practice to design merges so that both lanes are coned down to half a lane? I have seen this at some roadworks.I design roads and traffic management arrangements (roadworks layouts) for a living, I've done it for 15 years.
This way it's clear to both lanes that neither have priority. (I know the left lane don't have priority but they think they do when it's the right lane that disappears.)
T0MMY said:
I'm not sure why merging later helps traffic flow quicker. The speed of the traffic is limited to the speed through the section that is down to one lane. Any further delays will only be caused by the various machinations of merging traffic but these would be smoothed out if they happened well prior to the single lane section. By doing the merging right at the start of the single lane section you must be either causing no further delay if it's done neatly or some further delay if people get a bit aggressive/defensive...I don't see how you can reduce the delay by doing that.
If everyone went in the left land the moment they saw the first roadworks sign the flow through the one lane section would probably be better because there wouldn't be stoppages at the pinch point due to last minute merges/inside lane people blocking zip merging.BUT the pinch point is moved back to the first roadsign and everyone would have to merge anyway so the queue would there instead of a mile or two later and the tailback would potentially be back onto the motorway or across some more junctions.
john2443 said:
OpulentBob said:
YOU'VE PAID FOR BOTH LANES. USE THEM.
I design roads and traffic management arrangements (roadworks layouts) for a living, I've done it for 15 years.
Why isn't it standard practice to design merges so that both lanes are coned down to half a lane? I have seen this at some roadworks.I design roads and traffic management arrangements (roadworks layouts) for a living, I've done it for 15 years.
This way it's clear to both lanes that neither have priority. (I know the left lane don't have priority but they think they do when it's the right lane that disappears.)
You can use existing road markings without the need to mask out and re-mark specific lanes in advance or after the merge.
Standard practice is to merge fast in to slow, so L2 in to L1. This puts the onus on the faster car to match speeds and merge more easily than HGVs etc, which are usually found in L1. It doesn't necessarily mean they are liaible, but if one person has to make a definite move, that's more "desirable" from a traffic point of view than 2 vehicles making a half-move.
In temporary situations at roadworks, it gives an entire lane to the workers, thereby maintaining safety zones and working areas, plus somewhere to park/work their van/truck/digger etc. Running a central merge would only leave half a lane on either side, and no work could be done in that. You would then need to "swing" the lane to one side or the other, which would need additional marking, signing, studs (cats eyes) etc, which, when removed, would leave ghost markings which are a nightmare in low-sun situations, or for bikers.
There are other reasons, but I can't think of them at the moment.
If you're interested, I've put the link to the standard guidance document for traffic management design below. It's quite easy to read and (for me at least) is reasonably interesting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
OpulentBob said:
Good question, one that gets asked a fair amount. I've answered this somewhere before too at length, but cant find it, so I'll give you the main points for keeping merges as they are (I am also pre-caffeine so may have forgotten some!)...
You can use existing road markings without the need to mask out and re-mark specific lanes in advance or after the merge.
Standard practice is to merge fast in to slow, so L2 in to L1. This puts the onus on the faster car to match speeds and merge more easily than HGVs etc, which are usually found in L1. It doesn't necessarily mean they are liaible, but if one person has to make a definite move, that's more "desirable" from a traffic point of view than 2 vehicles making a half-move.
In temporary situations at roadworks, it gives an entire lane to the workers, thereby maintaining safety zones and working areas, plus somewhere to park/work their van/truck/digger etc. Running a central merge would only leave half a lane on either side, and no work could be done in that. You would then need to "swing" the lane to one side or the other, which would need additional marking, signing, studs (cats eyes) etc, which, when removed, would leave ghost markings which are a nightmare in low-sun situations, or for bikers.
There are other reasons, but I can't think of them at the moment.
If you're interested, I've put the link to the standard guidance document for traffic management design below. It's quite easy to read and (for me at least) is reasonably interesting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
Interesting read, thanks You can use existing road markings without the need to mask out and re-mark specific lanes in advance or after the merge.
Standard practice is to merge fast in to slow, so L2 in to L1. This puts the onus on the faster car to match speeds and merge more easily than HGVs etc, which are usually found in L1. It doesn't necessarily mean they are liaible, but if one person has to make a definite move, that's more "desirable" from a traffic point of view than 2 vehicles making a half-move.
In temporary situations at roadworks, it gives an entire lane to the workers, thereby maintaining safety zones and working areas, plus somewhere to park/work their van/truck/digger etc. Running a central merge would only leave half a lane on either side, and no work could be done in that. You would then need to "swing" the lane to one side or the other, which would need additional marking, signing, studs (cats eyes) etc, which, when removed, would leave ghost markings which are a nightmare in low-sun situations, or for bikers.
There are other reasons, but I can't think of them at the moment.
If you're interested, I've put the link to the standard guidance document for traffic management design below. It's quite easy to read and (for me at least) is reasonably interesting.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploa...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-0E2Nxtm6o
Reason enough to merge early?
Ok, slightly exaggerated circumstances. I think you should merge when safe an legal to do so. But I also think you don't have the "right" to be let in. Just as you don't have the right to pass others on a multi-lane road unless the outer lane is clear.
I see this a lot at the Tunbridge Wells section of the A21, which is now becoming dual carriageway all the way through! (Hurrah) That merging point hasn't moved nor is it unexpected but some drivers try to force the issue so much that they end up either running into the ghost island or causing more tailbacks. Common sense is they key.
Reason enough to merge early?
Ok, slightly exaggerated circumstances. I think you should merge when safe an legal to do so. But I also think you don't have the "right" to be let in. Just as you don't have the right to pass others on a multi-lane road unless the outer lane is clear.
I see this a lot at the Tunbridge Wells section of the A21, which is now becoming dual carriageway all the way through! (Hurrah) That merging point hasn't moved nor is it unexpected but some drivers try to force the issue so much that they end up either running into the ghost island or causing more tailbacks. Common sense is they key.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff