Idiots straddling lanes on a merge

[Motorrad]

Good reading and helps me understand the otherside's viewpoint even if it's incorrect.

[flemke]

Motorrad said:

flemke said:

various

Your entire reasoning is based on the there being a 'queue' to jump. There isn't that's my entire point.

What I find scary is that you seem to be suggesting you know how other drivers are going to react in a given situation. While it's possible to make an informed guess nobody really knows and that's the foundation of advanced driving systems.

You wouldn't be zip merging if the road was empty- if there are other drivers present then it's possible to zip merge. The fact that they might be idiots who queue in a long line and waste available road space is neither here nor there.

Your argument could equally be applied to lane discipline as I've already said.

I've already addressed these points, above. Perhaps the problem is that I have failed to express myself clearly, although it seems to me that the answers are self-evident to all of us anyway. In either case, it would probably be fruitless to repeat what I have written.

Motorrad said:

I don't appreciate your belittling tone either, I haven't done that to you so I'd aks you to behave like a decent human being and keep this as civilised as possible.

in his previous post Motorrad said:

Flemke's argument stating that he doesn't zip merge because he knows nobody else will is part of the sheep mentality that's the problem.

[flemke]

walm said:

The bank analogy is bad because there is physically no way to "slot in" between two customers who are already queueing.
In the case of a line of cars, there is almost always a stop-start motion going on in the line as all the MLMs fail to notice the car in front of them moving and then fail to engage the clutch with any sort of efficiency.
As a result, more often than not, slots open up. Just don't leave it to the last 100 feet.

The point of the bank analogy was that there is not single, invariably right way to manage the flow of traffic efficiently and equitably. It depends on the physical layout, it depends on the traffic density, but it also can depend on the choices that were made by the people who got there ahead of oneself. Did the people who came to McDonald's, or to the bank, elect to form a single queue, or did they go for separate tills? What they did will sometimes dictate what is right for the next customer in the shop. That's just the way it works in a civilised society.
In some motoring circumstances, such as when the traffic is flowing freely, and there are spaces available - either because of natural gaps or because both queues are consciously zipping together - the most efficient and courteous thing is to use both lanes.
In other circumstances, however, the traffic is not flowing freely. There is a queue. In those circumstances, it does not help the overall traffic flow to go up to the end of the offside lane and either to wait for another driver obligingly to let you in, or to bully your way in. At those times, queue-jumping is no less selfish and rude than it is at the bank.

[deeps]

flemke said:

Think about what happens when you go into, say, a bank or a fast food joint...

Flemke, I understand how you can draw that analogy, but tbh I think it's a little different on the roads.

If the fast food shop has 2 tills, then I agree 1 queue in the middle is the fairest way; that way somebody doesn't get caught behind the person ordering food to feed his familly of 19, while the other queue has served 10 customers.

But, what would happen if the shop became very busy, so much so that the single queue stretched right across the shop and out of the door. I would think a competent manager may well suggest forming 2 queues.

Also, if a motorway is closed following an accident, and all 3 lanes of near stationary traffic is instructed to leave at Jnct 13 ahead, at what point should the 3 lanes of traffic merge to exit at that junction? Should they all attempt to join lane 1 as soon as possible?

(Btw, jtlyk, I used your startling stat from about 6 months ago in another thread).

[Pints]

Have been reading this thread with much interest and there was a lot of chin stroking done all the while. (Even discussed it with work colleagues to get their opinions.) Although I can see the view from both sides of the lane (so to speak), my take is that I pay road tax and that entitles me to use all the road as the law would sensibly permit. Since the law permits me to use the right lane when verging, I'll jolly well continue to do thusly.

[G51CAV]

Getragdogleg said:

The trucks that run together to block the late overtakers have a perfect view ahead of the traffic thinning and starting to flow again, the lanes have no need to merge and so the queue moves freely until the double lanes of traffic behind the trucks snaggle it up again.

And no concept of the additional length they have added to the delay behind them.

I have been on blue light runs where because of the ill conceived idea by some truckers that it is there right to add to the congestion my progress has been considerably hampered, it is far worse for ambulances and the fire service.

Where this has occured and the offender identified a visit at later point to have a chat with the the company's transport manager is not out of the question.

Next time you decide to consider self policing, give a thought to the possibility that something could be happening further up the road and remember where help could be coming from.

[flemke]

deeps said:

flemke said:

Think about what happens when you go into, say, a bank or a fast food joint...

Flemke, I understand how you can draw that analogy, but tbh I think it's a little different on the roads.

If the fast food shop has 2 tills, then I agree 1 queue in the middle is the fairest way; that way somebody doesn't get caught behind the person ordering food to feed his familly of 19, while the other queue has served 10 customers.

But, what would happen if the shop became very busy, so much so that the single queue stretched right across the shop and out of the door. I would think a competent manager may well suggest forming 2 queues.

If the single queue were that long, it wouldn't make much difference to efficiency if it were divided into a pair a long queues. If, however, in order to make the second queue, the manager did it the simple way, so that the person who had been at the midpoint plus 1 of the single queue were to be the first in the new, second queue, then a bunch of folks would be justifiably cheesed off. Efficiency of service would be the same, but equitability would have been lost.

deeps said:

Also, if a motorway is closed following an accident, and all 3 lanes of near stationary traffic is instructed to leave at Jnct 13 ahead, at what point should the 3 lanes of traffic merge to exit at that junction? Should they all attempt to join lane 1 as soon as possible.

The most important things are to keep the queue flowing, and to allow equitability.
The least efficient queue is the one in which someone in the nearside lane is forced to stop, in order to accomodate a vehicle in the offside lane, when, without that need to accomodate, the nearside vehicle would not have had to stop. In that case, it would have been better if the offside vehicle had joined earlier, at a point where its joining did not cause other vehicles to stop. When the offside driver genuinely believes for good reason that he will be able to slot into a natural gap ahead, then I've no problem with his making progress in the offside lane; I try to do that myself.
I think that we all know, however, that plenty of times the person speeding ahead in the offside lane is just a selfish chancer who knows that a natural space ahead is unlikely, but that he'll be able to "persuade" someone to let him in. Those common antics are the worst, because they cause both inefficiency and inequitability.

[Noger]

Always seems that the people "jumping the queue" are the ones with rather inadequate cars in the first place. So it is the only way for them to make any progress

If they could be bothered to get a decent car in the first place, then they could sit quietly in the queue and get no bother from anyone. And then catch it all back up again when they got to a decent bit of road where it was more fun.

Or just leave 5 mins earlier.

[flemke]

Pints said:

Have been reading this thread with much interest and there was a lot of chin stroking done all the while. (Even discussed it with work colleagues to get their opinions.) Although I can see the view from both sides of the lane (so to speak), my take is that I pay road tax and that entitles me to use all the road as the law would sensibly permit. Since the law permits me to use the right lane when verging, I'll jolly well continue to do thusly.

That reminds me of a legend about Abraham Lincoln. I could not say whether it is true.

Until he came to Washington in 1861, Lincoln lived in Illinois and Kentucky. In those days, that region was something like the Wild West.
Lincoln was riding in the coach of a crowded train. At the next stop, a man got on the coach and sat in the seat next to Lincoln's. After the train set off, the man reached into his pocket, took out a cigar, lit it and started puffing away. This cigar emitted a particularly offensive, noxious stench.

Lincoln: "Excuse me, but your cigar smoke is bothering me. Would you mind putting it out?"
Smoker: "Yes, I would mind. I've paid for this seat, and whilst in it I shall do whatever I like."
Lincoln: "All right. I've paid for my seat, and whilst in it I shall do whatever I like." With that, Lincoln took his pistol from its holster and pointed it at the smoker's forehead.

[NiceCupOfTea]

In these situations I try to be as un-antagonistic (if that's a word) as possible, and cruise down the outer lane looking for a natural gap to merge into, thanking the person behind whether they have done anything to let me in or not (and especially if they have attempted to close the gap ). It is rather irritating when somebody boots it down the outer lane to the very last point and just wedges their nose in whether there is a gap or not; this kind of behaviour does delay traffic and creates a ripple of brake lights as others are forced to take evasive action. This is as selfish as those creating the queues by staying in one lane IMHO.

I don't think anybody has addressed the subtly different situation (apologies if they have and I missed it) where rather than 2 lanes merging at a point, you have 3 lanes, down to 2, down to 1 (motorway roadworks, accident, etc.). More often than not these are indicated with gantry signs. First will generall show the "|TT" symbol, followed by a couple of "|/_" (keep left arrows) and eventually a red "X". So when exactly should you merge? This often happens over a mile or two and in slow moving traffic the decision you make here can put an hour on your journey. We all know that we should begin to get over at the first indication of closed lanes ahead, but then we sit and watch car after car after car fly past. In theory you can keep going until the red "X", but then some will keep going up to (and occasionally through/over!) the line of cones. Provided they merge well into gaps, they are using all the available road space and so are preventing congestion. However, they are breaking the law continuing after the red X. This, for me, is a much greater problem. I've been driving for 17 years and am a (lapsed) IAMer, but I really don't know what the answer is here. What should one do in this situation?

As an aside, somebody mentioned the "pushing in" aspect in queues. I recently saw a 60s public information film that horrified me - the implication was that by overtaking you were somehow "queuejumping" You don't see this kind of message from the powers that be these days, but it is clear some still have the same reaction to overtaking, that you're pushing in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4oOp_T70CFI

Edited by NiceCupOfTea on Tuesday 2nd June 22:26

[philthy]

G51CAV said:

Getragdogleg said:

The trucks that run together to block the late overtakers have a perfect view ahead of the traffic thinning and starting to flow again, the lanes have no need to merge and so the queue moves freely until the double lanes of traffic behind the trucks snaggle it up again.

And no concept of the additional length they have added to the delay behind them.

I have been on blue light runs where because of the ill conceived idea by some truckers that it is there right to add to the congestion my progress has been considerably hampered, it is far worse for ambulances and the fire service.

Where this has occured and the offender identified a visit at later point to have a chat with the the company's transport manager is not out of the question.

Next time you decide to consider self policing, give a thought to the possibility that something could be happening further up the road and remember where help could be coming from.

I call bullst on this one.
If you've been on blue light runs, you would be aware that professional drivers are not only more likely to spot you, they are also most likely to help you out.
If you are an emergency service driver, with blues and twos available, why don't you go down the hard shoulder as normal? Would you prefer the two trucks holding back the traffic, and allowing the restriction to start moving, to be a line of "fk off" selfish car drivers who wouldn't move if their life depended on it/weren't too stupid to see you?

....and by the way, it's "their" when you refer to the actions of others, hasn't your force pointed this out?

[Motorrad]

Shame flemke feels he has already answered my points, I don't believe he has and still find it disturbing he or anyone else believes they have knowledge of how other road users are going to act.

It seems clear to me the other side of this debate has not managed to address the ridiculous nature of what they are advocating ie not using all the available road space.

According to sources like that quoted earlier and common sense zip merging is the quickest way of moving traffic through a bottle neck.

Are they suggesting this isn't the case?

Or are they suggesting that the inadequate reasoning and illogical behaviour of those who like to form a single line should inform the behaviour of all other motorists?

[philthy]

Motorrad said:

It seems clear to me the other side of this debate has not managed to address the ridiculous nature of what they are advocating ie not using all the available road space.

Does moving traffic move faster than stationary traffic?
Scenario 1:
If drivers merge in plenty of time, it doesn't force them to to stop, and they flow through the restriction (albeit slower). However, they keep moving.
I would also add, that it would be really nice, if they put their feet down, and got moving away from the choke point.
Scenario 2:
Drivers decide to "use" the remaining clear road right up to the choke point, and have to force themselves, or wait to be "allowed" in front of another vehicle. End result, stationary traffic.

Imagine this:
A school yard has 300 kids in it. A fire breaks out, and everyone has to leave by the main door. In single file, the kids will run through it. Then, someone decides they don't need to wait, and "pushes in" right next to the door? It causes a ripple, and the kids behind run straight into the back of the person in front. The one who pushed in, has left the building. They have however, left a big pile of kids all fighting to make their exit.
It is simple human nature, there are selfish bds about.

Have a nice day.

Edited by philthy on Tuesday 2nd June 23:07

[flemke]

Motorrad said:

Shame flemke feels he has already answered my points, I don't believe he has and still find it disturbing he or anyone else believes they have knowledge of how other road users are going to act.

I spoke about assessing probabilities and risks, in reply to your assertion that "...driving is brownian motion, you have no idea of what random sequence of events are going to place you where on the road".
If you really believe that driving is Brownian motion, and that the sequence of events ahead will be random, how do you yourself ever drive from A to B? If you would like to overtake a car in the nearside lane, but its behaviour will be random, how could you know that to overtake it would be safe? How can you drive past a junction at anything other than a crawling pace, lest a vehicle sat at the side road stop-line randomly lurch forward into your path?

[Ranger 6]

flemke said:

.....the most efficient and courteous thing is to use both lanes.....

'nuff said perhaps

Seriously though - You've been an advocate of the queuing methodology and mention 'equitably' So where do you merge then? at the 800m boards or do you just join the back of a queue whenever you see one? Maybe the queue you join is for a junction you don't want or need - what then?

Your banking and fast food analogies are valid in their own environment and situations, but on the motorway you're better off thinking that the traffic is like grains of sand in a funnel.
The queue in lane 1 is the sticky, slighty damp, maybe even a little stodgy sand which has stuck to the side of the funnel. Each grain stuck to the back of the one in front and not moving until dragged along behind.
Meanwhile, natural flow (maybe even gravity ) has caused more free flowing sand to fill the rest of the funnel and when it reaches the neck it simply blends with the aforementioned damp sticky stuff and all flows through eventually.

Would it move quicker if the damp, slightly stodgy sand was not clogging one side of the neck? I think so.

Those who ski will know the other analogy that I would suggest here - the lift queue. We all know there's a bottle neck and the staunch brits will queue and mumble about those who fill the available space, but we all get through in the end

IMHO if the traffic planners had wanted us to queue 800m back then they would have put the merge 800m back. Until then you will see me drive carefully and sensibly using the flow of least resistance to the merge point in the available lanes.

Yes I do drive a BMW, in fact I've got two....

[flemke]

Ranger 6 said:

flemke said:

.....the most efficient and courteous thing is to use both lanes.....

'nuff said perhaps

Seriously though - You've been an advocate of the queuing methodology and mention 'equitably' So where do you merge then? at the 800m boards or do you just join the back of a queue whenever you see one? Maybe the queue you join is for a junction you don't want or need - what then?

I don't say always join the back of a queue. I don't say always default to the offside lane. One's choice must depend on the circumstances. The folks who robotically get into the queue at the first opportunity are not impressive, but the folks who wilfully exploit a clear offside lane - when there is no realistic chance of a natural space ahead - with the intention of barging their way in later, are repellent.
As to what if one has joined a queue for the wrong junction, sometimes that happens, but not often. The overwhelming majority of queues are at systematic bottlenecks. Because they are systematic, it's mostly the same drivers every day who must negotiate them, and they know the proper junction.

[Getragdogleg]

G51CAV said:

Getragdogleg said:

The trucks that run together to block the late overtakers have a perfect view ahead of the traffic thinning and starting to flow again, the lanes have no need to merge and so the queue moves freely until the double lanes of traffic behind the trucks snaggle it up again.

Next time you decide to consider self policing, give a thought to the possibility that something could be happening further up the road and remember where help could be coming from.

I dont do it.

But I agree with it in terms of traffic flow through single lane contraflows. The rate the traffic flows when everyone merges WELL before they have to is much faster than the stop start you get when Mr Rightlane tries to cut in front of Mrs miggins and Mrs Miggins stops dead for a few seconds. then starts moving again just in time to be carved up at the last possible second in a fantastic cone clipping way by Mr "most important thing in the world is happening somewhere I am not".

I set off with lots of time and try to plan my journeys to factor in waiting in line somewhere on the motorway network. I try to drive in a way that has the least impact on others, I try to improve my observation and discipline every time I go out, I try to practise good steady progress with no sudden moves to upset the simple folk around me, after all my truck is very big.

The fact of this matter is that while you have late merging you will get delays because the majority of drivers do not have the skils to do it properly. Most drivers are unaware their neck swivels and the mirrors look back and show what is happening behind.

I stay in the left lane but do not have a problem with any other driver who sits next to me to block thos less organised.

I also find the Emergency services will come up the hard shoulder if they need to get past. I am as aware of what is behind me (care of my rear cameras and mirrors) as what is in front.

[dipstic]

I think this thread just shows how a fairly simple merging situation gets messed up because of drivers who always assume that what they are doing is right and if they are not right then its not their fault as the other driver is a useless moron who shoulnt be on their bit of road.
The roads today are a direct reflection of how some people live their lives.

[deeps]

flemke said:

I don't say always join the back of a queue. I don't say always default to the offside lane.

You're sounding a bit like Von now .

In other words, we should make our own minds up. But what if we're incompetent at making the correct choice? Should we have new legislation that will allow 'Lane Cameras' to photograph and prosecute drivers who haven't merged in good time?

[Getragdogleg]

dipstic said:

I think this thread just shows how a fairly simple merging situation gets messed up because of drivers who always assume that what they are doing is right

Yes to a degree but the worst ones are the people who have no idea what they are doing and have no clue what is going on around them, mix in a lane merge and faster traffic cutting in front of them and it is too much to expect smooth progress.

Just look at the fuss you get on a slip road onto a motorway, the joining traffic needs to match its speed and merge, to do this you need to look in your mirrors and look over your shoulder and judge the speed and traffic density. I have lost count of the number of times a car has cruised down the slip road, not looked/looked at the the last second and expects the lane to be clear, If I am in the left lane at 54.5 mph in 38 tons of truck and I have heavy traffic next to me in the middle lane there is not much i can do apart from ease up (because if I dont they will be under my N/S wheel) and hope they see the widening gap, most of the drivers I encounter hit the brakes and slow to less than I am doing, then come out anyway, I then end up at 31mph while the joining car speeds of oblivious to the fact they nearly caused an accident through not using their neck or eyes. I expect this at EVERY sliproad. the ones that are empty are a nice bonus.

Its no good pulling out in light traffic into the middle to let slip road traffic merge either because all you get is everyone coming out of the slip road and speeding up and undertaking you leaving you stranded in the middle lane while those you let out vanish into the distance, normally one car will sit at 54 mph halfway down the lorry on the inside as if you are going to magically turn the bloody limiter off and pull in front of them, these morons will then come past on the inside after a few miles and you can pull in. they will then slow down to 49, you then start to go past whereby they speed up to 54.6 and you are stuck again. Its normally Micras and I often slow to 45 for a bit to let them go ahead because its a silly game and I dont know the rules obviously.