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.
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.
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.
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'.
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).
Gassing Station | Advanced Driving | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff