Discussion
One of my team recently got some clarification from the HA (now called Highways England for any future reference) regarding the term "merge in turn".
Merge in turn is a specific situation that applies to slow moving traffic lanes and does not apply to 'free flowing' fast traffic.
The public seem to confuse "merge in turn" with situations such as end of slip roads where they join the main carriageway, or when a dual carriageway lane comes to an end (ie. 3 lanes down to 2 ...or... 2 lanes down to 1 for example) or even within urban areas whereby traffic is slower but essentially is still 'free flowing' (ie. not within a queue).
Merge in turn within slow moving traffic is supposed to enable the smooth transition from two lane running in to one lane running (or 3 down to 2 etc.).
The HA had an initiative a while ago whereby they attempted to encourage traffic to "merge-in-turn" with the use of specific signs at road works. These signs had the text "merge in turn" on them with arrows to help describe vehicle movements. There were even proposals for electronic versions of these signs to further demonstrate how multi-lane traffic should merge from one lane to another in turn.
I notice on some threads posted on PH that some think (and this is reflected in the wider public) that a 1014 arrow (page 171 from the TSRGD means "merge in turn"), it does not.
So when one approaches the end of a dual carriageway and is in lane 2 approaching a series of 1014 arrows (pointing to the left), this is a warning to the driver that there is a reduction of traffic lanes ahead (ie. the reduction being the lane you are travelling in and therefore can also be read in line with there being an 'obstruction ahead').
This warning/instruction is for lane two traffic and not for lane 1 traffic, so therefore the onus is on lane 2 traffic to move safely in to lane 1, using mirrors and making sure they find an appropriate gap. It is therefore also apparent that lane 2 traffic must 'give way' in a sense to traffic already in lane 1, it is not a case of who is simply 'ahead'.
This is vastly different to a "merge in turn" situation whereby within slow moving traffic a priority is not established and it is for individual traffic to merge in to spaces one by one. Usually in this case which ever vehicle is ahead should be allowed to merge with compliance from the vehicle who is trailing.
It seems to be a more common experience to have situations in free flowing traffic at the end of dual carriageways whereby a vehicle in lane 2 assumes he/she has priority to move across the road in front of lane 1 traffic simply because he/she is 'ahead'. This is wrong.
As many more road users are now using in-car-cameras (dash-cams etc.) and these occurrences of bad driving are making their way on to social media. And I think social media is taking on a role that used to be filled by the state broadcaster in public safety videos.
Merge-in-turn is seen by road operators as a benefit for queuing traffic at road works in that they use both (or more) lanes to queue and not just one, then at the 'pinch-point' they smoothly merge-in-turn.
So this also addresses another common gripe I read on PH in that when they say they notice drivers going down an empty lane when queuing traffic is all in lane 1. They are actually doing nothing wrong.
Its a very "British" thing to do - to queue behind others that is.
The problem would not be such if drivers used all available lanes and then merge-in-turn smoothly when required.
Merge in turn is a specific situation that applies to slow moving traffic lanes and does not apply to 'free flowing' fast traffic.
The public seem to confuse "merge in turn" with situations such as end of slip roads where they join the main carriageway, or when a dual carriageway lane comes to an end (ie. 3 lanes down to 2 ...or... 2 lanes down to 1 for example) or even within urban areas whereby traffic is slower but essentially is still 'free flowing' (ie. not within a queue).
Merge in turn within slow moving traffic is supposed to enable the smooth transition from two lane running in to one lane running (or 3 down to 2 etc.).
The HA had an initiative a while ago whereby they attempted to encourage traffic to "merge-in-turn" with the use of specific signs at road works. These signs had the text "merge in turn" on them with arrows to help describe vehicle movements. There were even proposals for electronic versions of these signs to further demonstrate how multi-lane traffic should merge from one lane to another in turn.
I notice on some threads posted on PH that some think (and this is reflected in the wider public) that a 1014 arrow (page 171 from the TSRGD means "merge in turn"), it does not.
So when one approaches the end of a dual carriageway and is in lane 2 approaching a series of 1014 arrows (pointing to the left), this is a warning to the driver that there is a reduction of traffic lanes ahead (ie. the reduction being the lane you are travelling in and therefore can also be read in line with there being an 'obstruction ahead').
This warning/instruction is for lane two traffic and not for lane 1 traffic, so therefore the onus is on lane 2 traffic to move safely in to lane 1, using mirrors and making sure they find an appropriate gap. It is therefore also apparent that lane 2 traffic must 'give way' in a sense to traffic already in lane 1, it is not a case of who is simply 'ahead'.
This is vastly different to a "merge in turn" situation whereby within slow moving traffic a priority is not established and it is for individual traffic to merge in to spaces one by one. Usually in this case which ever vehicle is ahead should be allowed to merge with compliance from the vehicle who is trailing.
It seems to be a more common experience to have situations in free flowing traffic at the end of dual carriageways whereby a vehicle in lane 2 assumes he/she has priority to move across the road in front of lane 1 traffic simply because he/she is 'ahead'. This is wrong.
As many more road users are now using in-car-cameras (dash-cams etc.) and these occurrences of bad driving are making their way on to social media. And I think social media is taking on a role that used to be filled by the state broadcaster in public safety videos.
Merge-in-turn is seen by road operators as a benefit for queuing traffic at road works in that they use both (or more) lanes to queue and not just one, then at the 'pinch-point' they smoothly merge-in-turn.
So this also addresses another common gripe I read on PH in that when they say they notice drivers going down an empty lane when queuing traffic is all in lane 1. They are actually doing nothing wrong.
Its a very "British" thing to do - to queue behind others that is.
The problem would not be such if drivers used all available lanes and then merge-in-turn smoothly when required.
AA999 said:
It seems to be a more common experience to have situations in free flowing traffic at the end of dual carriageways whereby a vehicle in lane 2 assumes he/she has priority to move across the road in front of lane 1 traffic simply because he/she is 'ahead'.
That's to be regretted, but I think it's hardly unique to situations where the number of lanes is reducing. People change lanes without proper consideration for those behind them all the time. "I'm ahead therefore I can change lanes in front of you even if it makes you have to slow down or brake" is endemic.Maybe this belongs as another example in the "Are driving standards getting worse?" thread
.With rare exceptions, new laws or regulations aren't the way to improve driver behaviour - especially if they appear unnecessary or excessive and so have the effect of bringing necessary restrictions into disrepute. (I'd cite the spread of over-restrictive 30 limits on rural roads as an example of the latter - and compulsory seatbelt wearing as one of the rare successes.)
But yes, the zip principle is key to maintaining good, safe traffic flow on crowded roads - even if the zip doesn't have to close. It works with motorway on-slips, for example, if each driver in lane 1 leaves space in front for one joining vehicle to merge in and the drivers on the slip road take a gap each in turn. (It beats me what drivers 2, 3, and 4 in the solid phalanx I often see approaching from my left are expecting to happen when they get to the dotted line.)
Zipping works on busy roundabouts too, as it avoids being awkwardly mirror-to-mirror with the car in the next lane, and keeps you out of the way of the one in the left lane who can't go straight on without taking a bit of the right too.
All useful, but I can't see any of it being successfully enforced by the law.
But yes, the zip principle is key to maintaining good, safe traffic flow on crowded roads - even if the zip doesn't have to close. It works with motorway on-slips, for example, if each driver in lane 1 leaves space in front for one joining vehicle to merge in and the drivers on the slip road take a gap each in turn. (It beats me what drivers 2, 3, and 4 in the solid phalanx I often see approaching from my left are expecting to happen when they get to the dotted line.)
Zipping works on busy roundabouts too, as it avoids being awkwardly mirror-to-mirror with the car in the next lane, and keeps you out of the way of the one in the left lane who can't go straight on without taking a bit of the right too.
All useful, but I can't see any of it being successfully enforced by the law.
akirk said:
It is not unknown to have merge signs at the end of a dual carriageway - it is not the default highway code position that you should merge at speed, but signs can indicate that you should...
Do you have any image examples of these signs in full time use at the end of a dual carriageway, I'd be interested to see it.Reason I ask is that highways england seem to be quite clear on the fact that 'merge-in-turn' is not something they would implement (via signing or otherwise) at speed. It is a maneuver only to be done in slow moving and/or queuing traffic.
Do you possibly mean sign number 872.1 from the TSRGD (page 138) ?
Because this is not a 'merge-in-turn' sign.
Merge-in-turn signs were supposedly trialed (or designed) a while ago as an electronic sign that would indicate the diagram along with the text "merge in turn" when traffic conditions became such that it would aid the queuing of traffic in 2 or more lanes approaching a pinch point (usually a road work lane closure).
I don't think they exist as a permanent sign, which would suggest that traffic conditions require 'merge in turn' 24/7.
If there is evidence of this being the case then I would like to reply back to highways england for a response.
AA999 said:
Do you have any image examples of these signs in full time use at the end of a dual carriageway, I'd be interested to see it.
On a slip road, and in Scotland but you might still me interested... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.870497,-4.251297...IcedKiwi said:
AA999 said:
Do you have any image examples of these signs in full time use at the end of a dual carriageway, I'd be interested to see it.
On a slip road, and in Scotland but you might still me interested... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.870497,-4.251297...IcedKiwi said:
On a slip road, and in Scotland but you might still me interested... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.870497,-4.251297...
Interesting example - good find.I guess Highways England may have a different take on it to Scotland but I may use this in a future clarification if necessary.
Cheers.
I imagine encouraging people to merge in turn at speed is dangerous, not on the basis that everyone did it courteously it would be bad, but on the basis that not everyone would it and the accidents would be at speed. At least today its the problem of the person in the disappearing lane who has to take responsibility. For it to work widely it would require a culture change as much as a highway code change in my opinion, and given a large chunk of the population don't know the basics like the speed limit on a 2 lane dual carriage way or a 4 lane single carriage way, I think educating them on zipping is a challenge.
The other dimension is what constitutes low speed? And take a motorway lane closure. Free flowing traffic can lose a lane at 70 mph or more. Queuing traffic can reach the same spot at 5 mph. You'd need to implement it on rods with same a 30 or 40 limit only and in my experience, that's not usually the places the issues occur. I see a lot of issues on NSL roads after roundabouts and traffic lights where cars are trying to use the situation as an opportunity to overtake.
The other dimension is what constitutes low speed? And take a motorway lane closure. Free flowing traffic can lose a lane at 70 mph or more. Queuing traffic can reach the same spot at 5 mph. You'd need to implement it on rods with same a 30 or 40 limit only and in my experience, that's not usually the places the issues occur. I see a lot of issues on NSL roads after roundabouts and traffic lights where cars are trying to use the situation as an opportunity to overtake.
Jonsv8 said:
The other dimension is what constitutes low speed?
This was the primary reason as to why the HA were trialing/using electronic signs that turned on when traffic conditions became such that 'merge in turn' would be beneficial. In effect leaving the answer to your question out of the hands of the motorist and in to the hands of the road operator.These portable signs would have sensors on them very similar to the "traffic master" road side traffic flow monitors, and when traffic speeds were low enough for a period of time then these signs would 'intelligently' turn themselves on and instruct 'merge in turn'.
AA999 said:
IcedKiwi said:
On a slip road, and in Scotland but you might still me interested... https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@55.870497,-4.251297...
Interesting example - good find.I guess Highways England may have a different take on it to Scotland but I may use this in a future clarification if necessary.
Cheers.
doesn't show on google maps / streetview...
but A40 dual carriageway past Whitney heading East...
NSL at 70mph, comes down to NSL single carriageway at 60mph
yellow signs with arrows & text in black saying merge in turn...
couldn't photograph it as driving... but went past it this morning
but looks like this one (apparently in Aylesbury):
but A40 dual carriageway past Whitney heading East...
NSL at 70mph, comes down to NSL single carriageway at 60mph
yellow signs with arrows & text in black saying merge in turn...
couldn't photograph it as driving... but went past it this morning
but looks like this one (apparently in Aylesbury):
Nice examples.
I got one of my colleagues to gain yet further clarification on 'merge in turn'.
And a reply came back this morning.
Merge in turn signs on a fast section of dual carriageway are backed up by signs where 'queuing' is commonplace and the intention is that the motorist should judge when 'merge in turn' is applicable. Advance signing of likely queuing should exist prior to a 'merge in turn' sign.
'Merge in turn' in effect removes any priority that one lane may have over another and again is signed when this is the case.
Their response indicated that some of their previous comments on when they would implement 'merge in turn' signage would be at temporary works (ie. road works), whereby a small conflict of reason arose and why I was surprised to read/see a full-time 'merge in turn' sign on a dual-c/w.
The PH massive resolves another issue. Thanks for the replies. I knew I would get better responses posting this in the 'advanced driving' section rather than SP&L for example.
(The project I am working on involves vehicle maneuver statistics near to the end of a dual-c/w whereby there are junctions and reported near-misses - hence clarification on what is going on at the end of the dual section - this particular study location doesn't have any merge-in-turn signage but has a high occurrence of vehicles automatically taking a stance that they have priority in lane 2 over lane 1 when their lane is coming to an end resulting in strange behaviour on approach to junctions further ahead).
I got one of my colleagues to gain yet further clarification on 'merge in turn'.
And a reply came back this morning.
Merge in turn signs on a fast section of dual carriageway are backed up by signs where 'queuing' is commonplace and the intention is that the motorist should judge when 'merge in turn' is applicable. Advance signing of likely queuing should exist prior to a 'merge in turn' sign.
'Merge in turn' in effect removes any priority that one lane may have over another and again is signed when this is the case.
Their response indicated that some of their previous comments on when they would implement 'merge in turn' signage would be at temporary works (ie. road works), whereby a small conflict of reason arose and why I was surprised to read/see a full-time 'merge in turn' sign on a dual-c/w.
The PH massive resolves another issue. Thanks for the replies. I knew I would get better responses posting this in the 'advanced driving' section rather than SP&L for example.
(The project I am working on involves vehicle maneuver statistics near to the end of a dual-c/w whereby there are junctions and reported near-misses - hence clarification on what is going on at the end of the dual section - this particular study location doesn't have any merge-in-turn signage but has a high occurrence of vehicles automatically taking a stance that they have priority in lane 2 over lane 1 when their lane is coming to an end resulting in strange behaviour on approach to junctions further ahead).
Good post OP. If I may add something slightly off topic, but still relevant, I think that a major consideration with this, and other aspects of the Highway Code, is avoiding road rage, especially for those of us with nice cars. Whilst I always try to follow the Highway Code and the law, I am somewhat hesitant to admit that, if I consider it safe to do so, I always consider road rage over and above the Highway Code and traffic laws, the reasoning being that I'd rather have 3 points on my license than a smashed windscreen and a broken nose. That's probably going to be a controversial statement, but it comes after just over 20 years of driving quite a lot of miles and noticing an increase in road rage that I receive and that I observe others receiving. In those 20 years I've been chased by a maniac driver once, been threatened with physical violence 4 or 5 times and had my car attacked once. Despite the majority of my miles in that time being in hire cars for work (usually mundane low spec Vauxhalls, Peugeots, Fords etc, all in dull colours), all of those incidents have occurred whilst I'm driving a sports car, a BMW or cycling; three things that are not at all popular with Joe Public.
With 'merge in turn' instructions for queuing traffic, I normally don't go anywhere near lane 2, because getting back in can cause a whole world of hassle. I recently witnessed a poor guy in a bright yellow Elise finding it completely impossible to return to lane 1 in a 'merge in turn' because he was being continually blocked by other drivers. He ended up sat at the end of the 'merge in turn' stationary with his indicator on, until a van let him in, before the van driver jumped out and gave the poor guy a lecture, thankfully nothing worse.
With the higher speed variety, such as when 3 lanes go to 2, or 2 lanes go to 1, I will normally look for as big a gap as possible very early on. Again, I've seen plenty of incidents with these where someone is trying to get in a reasonable distance before the merge, usually at the first warning, and being continually blocked by drivers accelerating (which as well as being aggressive causes bunching and un-bunching at close range in 50-70mph traffic, which is quite dangerous). With reference to the recent video that we've probably all seen of the caravan driver and the lorry on the M6, we don't known what the caravan driver's motive was, but just for the record I've quite often watched that sort of thing happen when the caravan (or some other slow moving vehicle people don't want in front of them) is indicating for absolutely ages and just not being let in. With a caravan this is even worse as you need quite a large gap to move into, and almost always co-operation from other drivers, especially those behind you. I'm not condoning what happened, but I just wanted to make the point that merging can be very difficult for certain drivers and is often governed by minimising road rage, not the Highway Code.
With 'merge in turn' instructions for queuing traffic, I normally don't go anywhere near lane 2, because getting back in can cause a whole world of hassle. I recently witnessed a poor guy in a bright yellow Elise finding it completely impossible to return to lane 1 in a 'merge in turn' because he was being continually blocked by other drivers. He ended up sat at the end of the 'merge in turn' stationary with his indicator on, until a van let him in, before the van driver jumped out and gave the poor guy a lecture, thankfully nothing worse.
With the higher speed variety, such as when 3 lanes go to 2, or 2 lanes go to 1, I will normally look for as big a gap as possible very early on. Again, I've seen plenty of incidents with these where someone is trying to get in a reasonable distance before the merge, usually at the first warning, and being continually blocked by drivers accelerating (which as well as being aggressive causes bunching and un-bunching at close range in 50-70mph traffic, which is quite dangerous). With reference to the recent video that we've probably all seen of the caravan driver and the lorry on the M6, we don't known what the caravan driver's motive was, but just for the record I've quite often watched that sort of thing happen when the caravan (or some other slow moving vehicle people don't want in front of them) is indicating for absolutely ages and just not being let in. With a caravan this is even worse as you need quite a large gap to move into, and almost always co-operation from other drivers, especially those behind you. I'm not condoning what happened, but I just wanted to make the point that merging can be very difficult for certain drivers and is often governed by minimising road rage, not the Highway Code.
RobM77 said:
With 'merge in turn' instructions for queuing traffic, I normally don't go anywhere near lane 2, because getting back in can cause a whole world of hassle.
Where are you doing this Rob? I'm sure you've said similar before but what you describe is so alien to my experience that I have to wonder what the difference is. It might be the car I suppose, but I do drive stand-out cars sometimes and I haven't noticed it make a difference. Is your experience from hugely overcrowded city centres perhaps - something like central London?We've all seen people drive down an empty lane 2 and barge their way in near the end, bullying the lane 1 vehicles out of the way, seemingly in a simple game of brinkmanship - "get out of my way or get driven into - your choice" and I can understand that anyone thinking about using lane 2 legitimately might feel very reticent due to not wanting to appear like one of those. I certainly don't want to appear like one of those and in my experience it's fairly easy not to, and I don't encounter any difficulty merging. It's difficult to describe a simple procedure for what I would do using lane 2 - it's mainly a case of "make sure you don't look like a t
t" being at the forefront of my mind - but I guess it's things like not racing past too fast, slowing gently and early rather than standing on the brakes, looking for who I am going to slot behind rather than thinking about who I am going to get ahead of, spotting those drivers in lane 1 - there are usually a few but not many - who are sticking inches from the car in front and knowing there's no point even bothering seeking any cooperation from them, not thinking at all in terms of getting past as many cars as possible or getting as close as possible to the end of lane 2 but just planning to use the empty lane while it's available and merge towards the end of it. Ease up alongside the vehicle I hope to merge behind, match speed, pop a signal on, let the queue to my left start coming past me so I am travelling backwards relative to it, and I find drivers behind happy to let me in. It's just not an issue.Whatever one's strategy though, the one thing I'd strongly advise is don't to merge so early that you can't even see the obstruction yet, as you'll feel awfully silly if you get to the front of the queue and there is no obstruction
. Obviously not applicable if the lane reduction is just the permanent road layout, but if it's, say, a temporary lane closure signed on a motorway, might as well confirm the lane is really closed before joining a queue.SK425 said:
RobM77 said:
With 'merge in turn' instructions for queuing traffic, I normally don't go anywhere near lane 2, because getting back in can cause a whole world of hassle.
Where are you doing this Rob? I'm sure you've said similar before but what you describe is so alien to my experience that I have to wonder what the difference is. It might be the car I suppose, but I do drive stand-out cars sometimes and I haven't noticed it make a difference. Is your experience from hugely overcrowded city centres perhaps - something like central London?We've all seen people drive down an empty lane 2 and barge their way in near the end, bullying the lane 1 vehicles out of the way, seemingly in a simple game of brinkmanship - "get out of my way or get driven into - your choice" and I can understand that anyone thinking about using lane 2 legitimately might feel very reticent due to not wanting to appear like one of those. I certainly don't want to appear like one of those and in my experience it's fairly easy not to, and I don't encounter any difficulty merging. It's difficult to describe a simple procedure for what I would do using lane 2 - it's mainly a case of "make sure you don't look like a t
t" being at the forefront of my mind - but I guess it's things like not racing past too fast, slowing gently and early rather than standing on the brakes, looking for who I am going to slot behind rather than thinking about who I am going to get ahead of, spotting those drivers in lane 1 - there are usually a few but not many - who are sticking inches from the car in front and knowing there's no point even bothering seeking any cooperation from them, not thinking at all in terms of getting past as many cars as possible or getting as close as possible to the end of lane 2 but just planning to use the empty lane while it's available and merge towards the end of it. Ease up alongside the vehicle I hope to merge behind, match speed, pop a signal on, let the queue to my left start coming past me so I am travelling backwards relative to it, and I find drivers behind happy to let me in. It's just not an issue.Whatever one's strategy though, the one thing I'd strongly advise is don't to merge so early that you can't even see the obstruction yet, as you'll feel awfully silly if you get to the front of the queue and there is no obstruction
. Obviously not applicable if the lane reduction is just the permanent road layout, but if it's, say, a temporary lane closure signed on a motorway, might as well confirm the lane is really closed before joining a queue.R0G said:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.664557,-1.176896...
A merge in turn near me
Lane closure on a bend by a junction on a 50mph dual carriageway. With inadequate prior warning.A merge in turn near me
Another 'Accident by Design' site?
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff