was i right or wrong?

[orangesrule]

i was in the centre lane with a landrover in front of me. there where 3 stationary vehicles in the outside lane. a taxi the middle of those 3. the lights were red, but the landrover was just rolling to the lights as they went green, as was i.

obviously the vehicles in the right lane had to pull away, so the landrover was ahead, then the 1st vehicle in the right hand land then me, then the taxi.

the 1st vehicle merged fine, the taxi however held his speed/sped up, so the front of his car was in inline with me (as the driver). i was just going as fast as the vehicle in front. now when i came to the merge glancing in my mirror, i noticed he was about 2 inchs off my nearside. 'pushing me wide'.

i just continued as fast as the car ahead. which forced him to brake mega harshly (he then promptly undertook me and the car in front. Now seeing as i was reading the sitution, should i have backed off to let him pass, or moved over to the left hand lane if it were free? whos falt would it have been if there was a collision (if i didn't check my mirrors, assuming he had pulled back and turned into him?)???

Edited by orangesrule on Friday 16th March 16:13

[solus87]

I believe you would be in the right, "merge in turn".

But I could be proved wrong...

[EssexIan]

If I understand correctly then the first car merged between you and the Land Rover, it would seem reasonable that the taxi then slotted in behind you and has acted rather aggresively. I have to say though that that looks an absolute mess of a junction and some give and take is obviously required, I have always been taught during advanced tuition to try not to get into these confrontational situation, sometimes we have to hang back and let someone make an arse of themselves and carry on knowing that we have been the superior driver for having avaoided an ugly incident!!

[Genelec]

Hmm, the question seems to be if a taxi was acting like an aggressive

The answer to that question is almost always yes. Or is that just London?

But yeah, I think you were behaving perfectly. In my opinion as expert in all things.

[saaby93]

Anyone know why in most places they only tell the outside lane to 'get in' rather than showing alternate pointing towards arrows 'merge in turn'

[crocodile tears]

saaby93 said:

Anyone know why in most places they only tell the outside lane to 'get in' rather than showing alternate pointing towards arrows 'merge in turn'

I don't understand?

Because we drive on the left hand side of the road.

In multi lanes you should always end up at some point moving back over to the left. after joining, after overtaking, after exiting, after navigating a roundabout etc etc

[herewego]

Was there some reason not to use the left lane?

[saaby93]

crocodile tears said:

saaby93 said:

Anyone know why in most places they only tell the outside lane to 'get in' rather than showing alternate pointing towards arrows 'merge in turn'

I don't understand?

Because we drive on the left hand side of the road.

In multi lanes you should always end up at some point moving back over to the left. after joining, after overtaking, after exiting, after navigating a roundabout etc etc

trouble is it can lead to a bust up
You often have traffic lights where they widen it to two lanes on approach to increase throughput
The other side you have lane1 dogmaticaly holding their space in their lane and lane2 has some curved arrows telling them to merge left back into a space that isnt there.
Sometimes Ive seen the arrows in lane1 curved right alternating with those in lane 2 so that both lanes merge in turn

Occasionally you get the arrows painted alongside each others in pairs which I can only assume means there's a profitable bodyshop not too far away

[crocodile tears]

saaby93 said:

crocodile tears said:

saaby93 said:

Anyone know why in most places they only tell the outside lane to 'get in' rather than showing alternate pointing towards arrows 'merge in turn'

I don't understand?

Because we drive on the left hand side of the road.

In multi lanes you should always end up at some point moving back over to the left. after joining, after overtaking, after exiting, after navigating a roundabout etc etc

trouble is it can lead to a bust up
You often have traffic lights where they widen it to two lanes on approach to increase throughput
The other side you have lane1 dogmaticaly holding their space in their lane and lane2 has some curved arrows telling them to merge left back into a space that isnt there.
Sometimes Ive seen the arrows in lane1 curved right alternating with those in lane 2 so that both lanes merge in turn

Occasionally you get the arrows painted alongside each others in pairs which I can only assume means there's a profitable bodyshop not too far away

I must admit especially directly after roundabouts I've seen some extremely retarded set-ups where everyone gets aggressive to block merges when the road quickly reverts to a single lane..

Whats worse is the people who block you merging are the same idiots that can't navigate a roundabout and decide to cut the roundabout by using 1/3 of your lane rather than the one they are suppose to be aggressively occupying

[R0G]

The arrow is clearing showing that those on the right must move to the left so therefore must give way to those already on the left

Had there been a similar arrow in the other lane then it would mean neither had priority

Good driving from all would have been to merge in turn

[Hooli]

Average taxi driving I'd say, any excuse to try & cause an accident - they take it.