When do you change lane?
Discussion
You are driving on a normal three lane motorway at say 60mph in lane 3, with lanes 1 and 2 pretty full at slightly slower speed. You can see ahead that over a mile ahead lane 3 has been closed and that everything has slowed to enable just two lanes to take the all the traffic, passed the coned off section. Hard shoulder is not open. You then pass a sign that indicates lane 3 is closed in 1 mile. The another sign at 800 yds, then another at 400 yds.
Now, many drivers in lane 3, start to move into lane 2 as soon as they see the lane closed one mile ahead sign. A few even indicate and look to see if it's safe to do so. Some drivers leave it until the 800 yds sign, some to 400 yds, and some cut in just before they slam into the cones.
Now the signs are just a warning that lane 3 is closed ahead. They don't say move over this second or your nicked. In some situations, leaving it until the last 100-200 yds could save you 15-30 minutes over the drivers who move the one mile sign. So, when do you, or when should you change lane? BiBs care to comment?
Now, many drivers in lane 3, start to move into lane 2 as soon as they see the lane closed one mile ahead sign. A few even indicate and look to see if it's safe to do so. Some drivers leave it until the 800 yds sign, some to 400 yds, and some cut in just before they slam into the cones.
Now the signs are just a warning that lane 3 is closed ahead. They don't say move over this second or your nicked. In some situations, leaving it until the last 100-200 yds could save you 15-30 minutes over the drivers who move the one mile sign. So, when do you, or when should you change lane? BiBs care to comment?
Merge in turn. People should be shot for not doing it. If we had penalties that actually penalised "bad" driving and rewarded actions that allowed traffic to flow freely we would all be a lot better off. Not merging in turn, middle land driving, causing inconvenience to other drivers, not keeping a gap in front to allow overtaking should all be specific 6 pt offences.
bluepolarbear said:
Merge in turn. People should be shot for not doing it. If we had penalties that actually penalised "bad" driving and rewarded actions that allowed traffic to flow freely we would all be a lot better off. Not merging in turn, middle land driving, causing inconvenience to other drivers, not keeping a gap in front to allow overtaking should all be specific 6 pt offences.
However most people see merging in turn as a competition and get into a mindset of "Well I am not letting a car in front due to the size of my tiny pen1s and large ego" , so then you get 2 cars merging in where should be 1 in 1 out, which cocks up the whole system.As BPB says - if we actually penalised this it would be better - I would be far happier to see (based on good evidence) drivers getting points and a fine for this kind of behaviour rather than exceeding a number on a stick
(and not looking right before pulling out on a roundabout, but thats another thread 
)TheCarpetCleaner said:
However most people see merging in turn as a competition and get into a mindset of "Well I am not letting a car in front due to the size of my tiny pen1s and large ego" , so then you get 2 cars merging in where should be 1 in 1 out, which cocks up the whole system.You are making it plain to the car ahead that you are not planning on jumping him (as your half a car length behind), and to the car behind that you are coming in (as you're half a length ahead).
This reduces the "competition" and as long as the car behind that needs to make space is not a total arse, the odds are that the merge will be fairly smooth. It also forces any cars following you to adopt the same asymmetric pattern, so the merge will be smoother, at least until the next prat comes along.
I've always thought that traffic would keep moving a lot quicker if the slow lane was forced to merge, purely on the basis that loads of drivers in the fast lane are quite selfish and will stay out there until the last minute, which gives rise to the bottleneck slowing everyone down.
Why don't these sort of tailbacks occur when a 3 lane carriageway reduces to a 2 lane naturally, as they do on many roads in the country? I suggest it's because the outside lane isn't full of 'queue jumpers' leaving things until the last minute.
Why don't these sort of tailbacks occur when a 3 lane carriageway reduces to a 2 lane naturally, as they do on many roads in the country? I suggest it's because the outside lane isn't full of 'queue jumpers' leaving things until the last minute.
Balmoral Green said:
I don't think that 'merge in turn' actually means go right up to the cones and do it at the last possible moment though. So we are back to the OP's question, when to merge? early or late?
Isn't this one of those things where the "right thing" to do depends on the circumstances, and outcome?If the traffic in slower lane is essentially stationary, so it is almost certain that there won't be a natural space up ahead into which a faster lane car could slot without interfering with someone else, then the fast lane driver should back off and try to merge as early as possible.
He knows in advance that there will be no forward place for him, so to plough on regardless is just to rely on the likelihood that he will be able to intimidate someone ahead into accomodating his selfishness.
On the other hand, if there really do appear to be genuine spaces ahead in slower lane, then the faster lane driver should feel free to go for one of them. If, however, he misjudges it and cannot fit in naturally after he has moved ahead, then he has exposed himself to other drivers' rightful disapprobation.
If you're going to go for it, you had better get it right.
If you don't get it right, don't blame someone else for not capitulating to your selfishness.
flemke said:
Balmoral Green said:
I don't think that 'merge in turn' actually means go right up to the cones and do it at the last possible moment though. So we are back to the OP's question, when to merge? early or late?
Isn't this one of those things where the "right thing" to do depends on the circumstances, and outcome?Merge in turn is the most effective way of merging two lanes into with the least delay. Everyone should be taught it and it should be law to do it - as it is in many countries.
As for the previous post the difference is speed. At natural 3 to 2 lanes restrictions the speed limit isn't reduced (J10 M40 for example) or reduces from 70 to 60. Providing the volume of traffic is sufficient for 2 lanes there is minimal distruption to flows. If traffic is heavy there is tail backs (again J10 M40 for example).
In road works speed differentials are much greater the maxium flow of traffic after the restriction is much lower, meaning bigger queues. You can't remove the queues, it is basic physics but queing in two lanes and not using lane 3 on the approach is the least effective way of maintaining max traffic flow.
People sitting in lane 1 and 2 thinking "look at the bloke pushing in, doesn't he know there is a queue" should be thinking "I am sitting here in this massive tail back because I AM so selfish I refuse to let people merge in turn and therefore everyone suffers".
bluepolarbear said:
flemke said:
Balmoral Green said:
I don't think that 'merge in turn' actually means go right up to the cones and do it at the last possible moment though. So we are back to the OP's question, when to merge? early or late?
Isn't this one of those things where the "right thing" to do depends on the circumstances, and outcome?Merge in turn is the most effective way of merging two lanes into with the least delay. Everyone should be taught it and it should be law to do it - as it is in many countries.
As for the previous post the difference is speed. At natural 3 to 2 lanes restrictions the speed limit isn't reduced (J10 M40 for example) or reduces from 70 to 60. Providing the volume of traffic is sufficient for 2 lanes there is minimal distruption to flows. If traffic is heavy there is tail backs (again J10 M40 for example).
In road works speed differentials are much greater the maxium flow of traffic after the restriction is much lower, meaning bigger queues. You can't remove the queues, it is basic physics but queing in two lanes and not using lane 3 on the approach is the least effective way of maintaining max traffic flow.
People sitting in lane 1 and 2 thinking "look at the bloke pushing in, doesn't he know there is a queue" should be thinking "I am sitting here in this massive tail back because I AM so selfish I refuse to let people merge in turn and therefore everyone suffers".
The only problem with your perfect world scenario is that the OP was talking about the real world in Britain, in which people often fail to merge in turn or "zip", as it's known in some countries in which people do it properly.
Therefore the question was what should one do in the real world if one arrives, at the extreme, upon a queue of sixty cars nose-to-tail in the middle lane because of a well-signed offside lane closure ahead, and the offside lane is empty until the cones.
Few of those sixty drivers will have preferred not to merge. Rather, they will have come upon the same scene as now, but a few minutes earlier. They themselves had to make the same decision that is facing the new arrival.
There is no law to prevent the new arrival's gaily streaking up the offside lane past the sixty stationary cars and then trying to wedge his car into a space that does not exist, forcing his way ahead of other drivers who had arrived at the site perhaps five minutes earlier than he did.
It's just that the person who attempts to do so is an asshole.
[quote=flemke
There is no law to prevent the new arrival's gaily streaking up the offside lane past the sixty stationary cars and then trying to wedge his car into a space that does not exist, forcing his way ahead of other drivers who had arrived at the site perhaps five minutes earlier than he did.
It's just that the person who attempts to do so is an asshole.
[/quote]
So the first 60 people make the wrong decision and the 61st person travels up the outside lane is the asshole? I think you have it the wrong way round.
There is no law to prevent the new arrival's gaily streaking up the offside lane past the sixty stationary cars and then trying to wedge his car into a space that does not exist, forcing his way ahead of other drivers who had arrived at the site perhaps five minutes earlier than he did.
It's just that the person who attempts to do so is an asshole.
[/quote]
So the first 60 people make the wrong decision and the 61st person travels up the outside lane is the asshole? I think you have it the wrong way round.
bluepolarbear said:
flemke said:
There is no law to prevent the new arrival's gaily streaking up the offside lane past the sixty stationary cars and then trying to wedge his car into a space that does not exist, forcing his way ahead of other drivers who had arrived at the site perhaps five minutes earlier than he did.
It's just that the person who attempts to do so is an asshole.
So the first 60 people make the wrong decision and the 61st person travels up the outside lane is the asshole? I think you have it the wrong way round.It's just that the person who attempts to do so is an asshole.
In fact, maybe no driver made the wrong decision, but a random event may have caused what was a flowing merge to grind to a halt.
Either of those things could have happened many hours previous, and everyone since has come upon a scene of absolutely stationary or creeping traffic in the middle lane.
The point is that, when you are driving and you can see that there is nowhere to go, that means that there is nowhere to go. There is no space for you, unless you bully someone who arrived before you to give up their space to your own car.
Of course a free-flowing zip is often the most effective, but that only works so long as you zip before all the space is filled.
A lot of the offside-lane chancers and bullies seem to think that anyone stuck in the middle lane was just too ignorant or lazy to do the obvious thing and overtake everyone all the way up to the cones. Do they really think that they are that much more clever than the rest of us?
Many of the people in the queue will have not caused the queue, but simply come upon it after it was fully formed. Seeing the queue, and the lack in it of a space ahead for themselves without chopping off someone else, they will show a bit of respect for others by taking position in the queue according to the time that they came upon it, not according to how selfish they are.
When the M60 was being widened, the A56 going under it had a lane closed. As you approached, there were signs saying "Merge in Turn", with a picture showing what they meant. It worked quite well. Surely it would be possible for all such road works to have similar signs put up until such time as it becomes natural.
Forums | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff