More merging drama
Discussion
RicksAlfas said:
Jodyone said:
I've seen this coning method proposed before, to improve the comprehension of "merge in turn", which so far is misunderstood by so many people. The current system is on the left of the diagram: though two lanes merge into one, it encourages the cars in the left lane to think they have priority, and are "letting" the others in (or not). The method on the right, effectively dissolves both existing lanes, without priority, and creates a new central lane (which falls back into the preferred lane soon after). This may get the message across better, that everybody should queue in any available lane, and each give way to one car from the other lane when they merge.
I think it seems like a good idea, has it been tried anywhere? Apologies for the hurried diagram, should be clear enough though.
The trouble is, when people think they're in the right, like the Renault driver, they're unstoppable...
I agree. See my post a few up from yours. The closure of a lane makes the other lanes "feel" they have priority.I think it seems like a good idea, has it been tried anywhere? Apologies for the hurried diagram, should be clear enough though.
The trouble is, when people think they're in the right, like the Renault driver, they're unstoppable...
The merging or combining of lanes - effectively closing both - should equal things out.
RicksAlfas said:
There's a dual carriageway near Halifax which goes down to one lane. There are clear signs saying "Merge in Turn".
Doesn't make any difference.
One of the problems is the design of the road. It is clear the outside lane is closing, which gives people in the inside lane the feeling that they have the priority. It would be far better if both lanes merged into one in a "Y" shape and then neither lane has the priority over the other. Then you get the zip merge.
This is the road I mentioned earlier, I guess. Every time I drive down it I wonder what absurdity will occur. Once I saw two Land Rover drivers get out to exchange notes on how to be a twazzock when (not) merging in turn.Doesn't make any difference.
One of the problems is the design of the road. It is clear the outside lane is closing, which gives people in the inside lane the feeling that they have the priority. It would be far better if both lanes merged into one in a "Y" shape and then neither lane has the priority over the other. Then you get the zip merge.
Centurion07 said:
The issue with that is it requires twice the number of cones and twice the man hours to implement which is probably why it's not done that way.
It's also less traffic-flow friendly when the motorway is empty enough to be flowing freely through the restriction because in that case you do actually want everyone merged into a single lane a decent distance before the choke point and that probably wouldn't happen unless it's clear which lane people should be merging into. Short of actually putting down new lane markings to show a symmetrical merging well before the choke (which would work but would obviously cost more), I don't think there is a single solution that works optimally in both light and heavy traffic. Except for driver education, of course, but that's not fashionable.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 21st April 16:02
Jodyone said:
I've seen this coning method proposed before, to improve the comprehension of "merge in turn", which so far is misunderstood by so many people. The current system is on the left of the diagram: though two lanes merge into one, it encourages the cars in the left lane to think they have priority, and are "letting" the others in (or not). The method on the right, effectively dissolves both existing lanes, without priority, and creates a new central lane (which falls back into the preferred lane soon after). This may get the message across better, that everybody should queue in any available lane, and each give way to one car from the other lane when they merge.
I think it seems like a good idea, has it been tried anywhere? Apologies for the hurried diagram, should be clear enough though.
The trouble is, when people think they're in the right, like the Renault driver, they're unstoppable...
I think it seems like a good idea, has it been tried anywhere? Apologies for the hurried diagram, should be clear enough though.
The trouble is, when people think they're in the right, like the Renault driver, they're unstoppable...
This takes the "I have right of way" element out of the equation and is easy to set up!
julian64 said:
causes problems with people with a sense of entitlement
And the best bit of this gem; you've already admitted you're one of them!Merge in turn is exactly that. It's signposted everywhere. I've got it three times on the way to and from work and every single time there's someone who thinks they have achieved greatness in life telling people in the 'wrong' lane that they should have merged back when they knew the lane was closing rather than where the road designers or the Highways Agency wanted it closed.
The renault driver's doing the right thing to get the traffic moving again but the real problem is that people don't understand merge in turn
With merge in turn what youre supposed to do is maintain 2 lanes of traffic and merge together zip fashion just where it goes down to one lane
However many people merge early as you can see, so you get lane 2 full and lane 1 almost empty
Merge in turn can still work if the odd cars still in lane1 travel at the same pace as those in lane 2 and merge when it's their turn
If instead they race up lane 1 undertaking every one in lane 2 , you can get just enough people merging at the end to prevent lane 2 moving at all.
Its even worse when it happens with 3 lanes
The answer is for someone to adopt either the lane 1.5 position or do what the renault is doing and hold station alongside the lane 2 traffic i.e to eventually merge in turn
So the renault was doing the right thing to get everyone moving again
Until the Merc tried to mess it up
With merge in turn what youre supposed to do is maintain 2 lanes of traffic and merge together zip fashion just where it goes down to one lane
However many people merge early as you can see, so you get lane 2 full and lane 1 almost empty
Merge in turn can still work if the odd cars still in lane1 travel at the same pace as those in lane 2 and merge when it's their turn
If instead they race up lane 1 undertaking every one in lane 2 , you can get just enough people merging at the end to prevent lane 2 moving at all.
Its even worse when it happens with 3 lanes
The answer is for someone to adopt either the lane 1.5 position or do what the renault is doing and hold station alongside the lane 2 traffic i.e to eventually merge in turn
So the renault was doing the right thing to get everyone moving again
Until the Merc tried to mess it up
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 21st April 16:04
kambites said:
It's also less traffic-flow friendly when the motorway is empty enough to be flowing freely through the restriction because in that case you do actually want everyone merged into a single lane a decent distance before the choke point and that probably wouldn't happen unless it's clear which lane people should be merging into.
That makes no sense, the volume of traffic per hour the road can handle remains the same, it just encourages merge in turn without one lane having a perceived priority.saaby93 said:
The renault driver's doing the right thing...So the renault was doing the right thing to get everyone moving again
Just, no. Read the Highway Code. Merge at the merge point. Not at some arbitrary point because the sheeple have formed a queue in one lane.Edited by jeremyc on Tuesday 21st April 16:09
KrazyIvan said:
kambites said:
It's also less traffic-flow friendly when the motorway is empty enough to be flowing freely through the restriction because in that case you do actually want everyone merged into a single lane a decent distance before the choke point and that probably wouldn't happen unless it's clear which lane people should be merging into.
That makes no sense, the volume of traffic per hour the road can handle remains the same, it just encourages merge in turn without one lane having a perceived priority.If the cars were being driven by computers you'd be right, it'd make no difference. With cars being driven by people who tend to overreact to an over-supply of sensory information, it makes quite a significant one.
You get a lot less traffic through a single lane restriction on a motorway than you get through a normal single lane A-road.
Edited by kambites on Tuesday 21st April 16:07
So here's a dilemma.
Combine the caravan merge with this one.
Driver uses the closed lane as they are allowed up to merge point. That driver attempts to merge in turn but person in the lane who should yield due to merge in turn, instead does what the lorry driver did in the other video and plainly drove into the merging vehicle. Is it now 100% fault of the vehicle not letting the other car merge in turn?
That's what I'd like to think but some reason the lane closing sign is misinterpreted by so, so many often leaving 400+ yards of completely free tarmac.
Combine the caravan merge with this one.
Driver uses the closed lane as they are allowed up to merge point. That driver attempts to merge in turn but person in the lane who should yield due to merge in turn, instead does what the lorry driver did in the other video and plainly drove into the merging vehicle. Is it now 100% fault of the vehicle not letting the other car merge in turn?
That's what I'd like to think but some reason the lane closing sign is misinterpreted by so, so many often leaving 400+ yards of completely free tarmac.
Pegscratch said:
saaby93 said:
The renault driver's doing the right thing...So the renault was doing the right thing to get everyone moving again
Just, no. Read the Highway Code. Merge at the merge point. Not at some arbitrary point because the sheeple have formed a queue in one lane.Merge at the end - dont race up the inside of the other traffic like the Merc.
Travel alongside the other traffic at the same speed and merge at the end in your turn
Otherwise you'll jump other peoples turns and cause the lane 2 traffic to become stationary
saaby93 said:
The renault driver's doing the right thing to get the traffic moving again but the real problem is that people don't understand merge in turn
With merge in turn what youre supposed to do is maintain 2 lanes of traffic and merge together zip fashion just where it goes down to one lane
However many people merge early as you can see, so you get lane 2 full and lane 1 almost empty
Merge in turn can still work if the odd cars still in lane1 travel at the same pace as those in lane 2 and merge when it's their turn
If instead they race up lane 1 undertaking every one in lane 2 , you can get just enough people merging at the end to prevent lane 2 moving at all.
Its even worse when it happens with 3 lanes
The answer is for someone to adopt either the lane 1.5 position or do what the renault is doing and hold station alongside the lane 2 traffic i.e to eventually merge in turn
So the renault was doing the right thing to get everyone moving again
Until the Merc tried to mess it up
With merge in turn what youre supposed to do is maintain 2 lanes of traffic and merge together zip fashion just where it goes down to one lane
However many people merge early as you can see, so you get lane 2 full and lane 1 almost empty
Merge in turn can still work if the odd cars still in lane1 travel at the same pace as those in lane 2 and merge when it's their turn
If instead they race up lane 1 undertaking every one in lane 2 , you can get just enough people merging at the end to prevent lane 2 moving at all.
Its even worse when it happens with 3 lanes
The answer is for someone to adopt either the lane 1.5 position or do what the renault is doing and hold station alongside the lane 2 traffic i.e to eventually merge in turn
So the renault was doing the right thing to get everyone moving again
Until the Merc tried to mess it up
Edited by saaby93 on Tuesday 21st April 16:15
The Merc wasn't racing up the inside (although it was going a bit too briskly for safety's sake!); it was correctly forming a queue in the left hand lane for the merge point further up the road.
That some sheeple decided to form a queue and not use both lanes is their problem. To take an earlier analogy further, when you're in the supermarket and have filled your shopping trolley do you join the longest queue because the people in that have been waiting longest and deserve to go first, or do you walk past them to the empty one where the member of staff is sat there asking you to come over?
It scares me that I have to share road space with people who paid so little attention to the book that tells them how they should use their killing machine.
That some sheeple decided to form a queue and not use both lanes is their problem. To take an earlier analogy further, when you're in the supermarket and have filled your shopping trolley do you join the longest queue because the people in that have been waiting longest and deserve to go first, or do you walk past them to the empty one where the member of staff is sat there asking you to come over?
It scares me that I have to share road space with people who paid so little attention to the book that tells them how they should use their killing machine.
Boydie88 said:
So here's a dilemma.
Combine the caravan merge with this one.
Driver uses the closed lane as they are allowed up to merge point. That driver attempts to merge in turn but person in the lane who should yield due to merge in turn, instead does what the lorry driver did in the other video and plainly drove into the merging vehicle. Is it now 100% fault of the vehicle not letting the other car merge in turn?
That's what I'd like to think but some reason the lane closing sign is misinterpreted by so, so many often leaving 400+ yards of completely free tarmac.
Wow. Just wow. The *CRV* drove into the truck. Not the other way round. Combine the caravan merge with this one.
Driver uses the closed lane as they are allowed up to merge point. That driver attempts to merge in turn but person in the lane who should yield due to merge in turn, instead does what the lorry driver did in the other video and plainly drove into the merging vehicle. Is it now 100% fault of the vehicle not letting the other car merge in turn?
That's what I'd like to think but some reason the lane closing sign is misinterpreted by so, so many often leaving 400+ yards of completely free tarmac.
There is no "must yield", that dashed line between lanes is a give way sign not a "you can barge in and the other guy has to move out of your way". Yes for the sake of traffic moving you should merge in turn but in your scenario the CRV driver would still be a **** (same as he was in the original) for going for a non-existent gap and attempting to barge in.
Pegscratch said:
julian64 said:
causes problems with people with a sense of entitlement
And the best bit of this gem; you've already admitted you're one of them!Merge in turn is exactly that. It's signposted everywhere. I've got it three times on the way to and from work and every single time there's someone who thinks they have achieved greatness in life telling people in the 'wrong' lane that they should have merged back when they knew the lane was closing rather than where the road designers or the Highways Agency wanted it closed.
For the record (again) I make the decision to merge in turn or not depending on the prevailing conditions when I arrive. If I meet a big long single file queue I join it. If I meet correctly functioning merge in turn I join the shortest queue and merge in turn and breathe a big sigh of relief.
What I don't do is what Mr Merc does.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff