More merging drama

[Moonhawk]

saaby93 said:

Right here's how to make the supermarket analogy work

You've got ONE check out
There's a queue leading up to it and everyone's patiently waiting their turn ( maybe not patiently)
Every now and again someone comes up the inside and joins the queue at the front.
People look a bit miffed but no-ones bothered to argue about it. The queue gets longer.
As it gets longer some people begin pushing in the middle of the queue
Eventually there are enough people pushing in that the back of the queue doesnt move

But that isn't analogous to this situation.

There are two lanes available to queue in and the highway code stipulates to merge in turn. If people choose to join the end of the long queue well in advance of the pinch point, rather than make use of the available road space - that is their choice - but it is exactly that 'a choice'. They should not impose their choice on other people who chose to act differently but still within the rules.

[Moonhawk]

saaby93 said:

^^^
I'm afraid I have to agree with Julian over Bob there. If the signage isnt working and it's pretty obvious it isnt, there's little point coming up with 'the regs say thats what we should do', or 'it would cost more to do something people understand'. If the answer is to pay a bit more or revise the regs lets do it.
Some of the proposals - less adavnce warning might cost less

What needs to change is driver education.

The problem IMO is that people see a sign saying "lane closure in 800 yards" and they think "I better move over now - because if I wait till the end, I might not be let in".

Also - some people who have not kept up to date with the HC may not know about the merge in turn rule. How many people read the HC on a regular basis - I bet most drivers haven't picked up a copy or read it online since they passed their test.

There is nothing wrong with the signage or the regs IMO - it's peoples attitude to them or a lack of understanding that is the problem.

Edited by Moonhawk on Friday 24th April 09:59

[Munter]

Moonhawk said:

There is nothing wrong with the signage or the regs IMO - it's peoples attitude to them or a lack of understanding that is the problem.

Signs generate understanding. In the current case, they generate the wrong understanding. Change the signs, change the understanding generated by them.

[Moonhawk]

Munter said:

Moonhawk said:

There is nothing wrong with the signage or the regs IMO - it's peoples attitude to them or a lack of understanding that is the problem.

Signs generate understanding. In the current case, they generate the wrong understanding. Change the signs, change the understanding generated by them.

Ok then - what about my previous example:

I have seen people block the second lane ahead of a merge point to stop people "queue jumping" - even when there is explicit signage to "use both lanes". How could the signage or regs be made clearer in this instance.

Even when they are told it's ok to use both lanes - they still see people doing so as "queue jumpers". The only way to change such an attitude is via education.

Clearly it's people's attitude that is at fault here.

[saaby93]

Moonhawk said:

The only way to change such an attitude is via education.

or the signs

Why does merge in turn work best in places like London sometimes where there are no signs
What about a version of this one



Any pedants please note I said version

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 10:06

[Munter]

Moonhawk said:

Ok then - what about my previous example:

I have seen people block the second lane ahead of a merge point to stop people "queue jumping" - even when there is explicit signage to "use both lanes". How could the signage or regs be made clearer in this instance.

Even when they are told it's ok to use both lanes - they still see people doing so as "queue jumpers". The only way to change such an attitude is via education.

Clearly it's people's attitude that is at fault here.

You mean the words that are competing with the picture that contradicts it.

None of the signs show cars on them. All people see is a picture showing the lane is closed and so they get out of it. No words are going to overpower that.

If the signs show 2 lanes full of cars, then merging into a central space. People will understand what the sign is showing.

[Moonhawk]

saaby93 said:

or the signs

Even with signs like that - you'd still get people who refuse to merge in turn - especially if they are not in the lane that is closing.

[saaby93]

Moonhawk said:

Even with signs like that - you'd still get people who refuse to merge in turn - especially if they are not in the lane that is closing.

yeah the idea with it is you dont tell them which lane is closing so they use both lanes until they find out right at the end.
To reduce the previously mentioned costs of removing catseyes it could quickly go one way or the other
But it's only an idea. Surely theres one that's better than what we have now

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 10:23

[Moonhawk]

Munter said:

You mean the words that are competing with the picture that contradicts it.

No - there is no picture in my particular example - it's not a lane closure - it's a normal merge point.

It is on a roundabout with a two lane dual carriageway as it's exit. About 100 yards after the exit - the right lane merges into the left (with painted merge arrows on the road) and the road becomes a single carriageway.

Due to the problems traffic was causing by joining a single file queue (i.e. backing up onto the roundabout and thereby blocking the other exits) - the council installed signs on the exit to the roundabout instructing drivers to "use both lanes". By getting drivers to use both lanes it would halve the length of the queue and thereby help alleviate problems on the roundabout.

Despite this signage however - some people still take umbrage with others using the right hand lane, seeing them as "queue jumpers" and I have often seen cars straddling the middle lane divider in order to prevent the right lane from being used.

[saaby93]

Moonhawk said:

Despite this signage however - people still take umbrage with people using the right hand lane, seeing them as "queue jumpers" and I have often seen cars straddling the middle lane divider in order to prevent people from doing so.

Same near here with a set of trafficlights. To improve throughput they opened it up to two lanes in, two lanes out, merge to left lane about hundred yards later
Just about everyone still queues in the left lane. If anyone uses the right lane, unless they have a heavy right foot to get away, theyre ostricised and obstructed from merging back in (but not so far as leading to a crash )

If there were signs, 'use both lanes to improve throughput' would that help?

[Barchettaman]

Ze Chermans once again have this figured out:





'Zip [merge] in 200 Meters'

[Mandat]

saaby93 said:

You're not combining two queues

sorry for the selective quoting, but that is precisely what is happening at the merge point.

There are two separate queues leading up to the merge point, and the problem is that people don't fill up both lanes evenly, leading to one long queue and one short queue. This is then compounded by those who choose to join the longer queue criticizing other who opt to use the shorter queue.

The ironic part about this is that those in the longer queue are creating the problem by not evening out the length of the two queues.

[saaby93]

Mandat said:

sorry for the selective quoting, but that is precisely what is happening at the merge point.

There are two separate queues leading up to the merge point, and the problem is that people don't fill up both lanes evenly, leading to one long queue and one short queue. This is then compounded by those who choose to join the longer queue criticizing other who opt to use the shorter queue.

The ironic part about this is that those in the longer queue are creating the problem by not evening out the length of the two queues.

It's ok
It depends what you see as the problem
If the problem is the length of the queue in lane 2, it's because most people are queueing in it rather than using both lanes and its not going to get any shorter if some people keep going to the front in lane 1
To make it shortest you need both lanes full travelling about same speed so no over/undertaking

If the problem is how long to takes to get through the restriction.
That's going to be determined by the restriction itself
Those going to the front in lane 1 are always going to make those in lane 2 take that much longer
To make the time the same for both you need to stop those in lane1 undertaking those in lane 2
This would happen naturally if both lanes were fully used

Of course if you want the quickest way through , you leave it as it is and use lane 1...

[Hol]

Mandat said:

saaby93 said:

You're not combining two queues

sorry for the selective quoting, but that is precisely what is happening at the merge point.

There are two separate queues leading up to the merge point, and the problem is that people don't fill up both lanes evenly, leading to one long queue and one short queue. This is then compounded by those who choose to join the longer queue criticizing other who opt to use the shorter queue.

The ironic part about this is that those in the longer queue are creating the problem by not evening out the length of the two queues.

I agree.

In the canteen example Mandat gave with two queues being served alternately by the till operator, you have an exact replica of a road merger. (Two Lanes, two queues, one exit)

A lane is a valid lane. Until it cease to be a lane.

It only ceases to be a lane if it is closed (Blocked/dead end) or it mergers into another lane.

[saaby93]

Hol said:

I agree.

In the canteen example Mandat gave with two queues being served alternately by the till operator, you have an exact replica of a road merger. (Two Lanes, two queues, one exit)

No there are 2 exits in that situation
and you still have the possibility of one queue being very long and the other a short one with people who realised they dont need to queue in the other

A replica would be two queues merging just before the checkout - I think Ive seen it done at airline terminals
But either way how do you make two even queues form?
(assuming you want everyone to be held up equally)

ETA Gotit
Those giant matrix boards with usually useless messages

Lane1 queue 2 metres 2 mins
Lane2 queue 2 miles 2 hours

or
Lane 1 is quicker

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 12:04

[Hugo a Gogo]

dutch ones are good

second sign says "merge in 300m"
3rd says "merge from here"

Ritsen means 'zip'

"Geef Ritsers Ruimte" rolls off the tongue too
(give zippers space)

[Hol]

saaby93 said:

Hol said:

I agree.

In the canteen example Mandat gave with two queues being served alternately by the till operator, you have an exact replica of a road merger. (Two Lanes, two queues, one exit)

No there are 2 exits in that situation
and you still have the possibility of one queue being very long and the other a short one with people who realised they dont need to queue in the other

A replica would be two queues merging just before the checkout - I think Ive seen it done at airline terminals
But either way how do you make two even queues form?

Edited by saaby93 on Friday 24th April 11:49

Are you really dismissing it simply because the till operator is the one who organises the order of merger (1xl/1xR/1xL etc) and not the queue's themselves??

Its still more valid than the supermarket analogy.